ES 25 (2003-04) - pp. 7-16
HOPKINS THE VICTORIAN-
POSTMODERN /-IST:
HIS MANIPULATION OF GENRE
PILAR ABAD GARCÍA
Uni e sidad de Valladolid
The aim o his a icle is o e lec upon he widely acknowledged phenomenon o
Hopkins´s mode ni y and o sugges ha his is no me ely a ma e o poe ic o m and
language bu ha i also has o do wi h o is also a consequence o , say, his p o o-
pos mode n ea men o gen e.
In his espec , wo o his amous leng hy shipw eck poems (“The W eck o he
Deu schland” and “The Loss o he Eu ydice”) a e conside ed om pos mode n and
Gen e Theo y assump ions. This p ocedu e e eals he wo poems´ in insic gene ic
complexi y which goes beyond adi ional gen e ypi ica ion, a complexi y which,
undoub edly, enhances he seman ic con en o bo h poems.
“… I is p ecisely agains he backg ound o he adi ion ha inno a ion is
concei ed…”
( R. Jakobson, “The Dominan ”, 1986: 46)
I as Habe mas (1986, 1987) p oclaims mode ni y s a s wi h he
Enligh enmen , also, as Lyo a d (1984) asse s, he pos mode n condi ion is
anshis o ical, and, besides, acco ding o McHale, “no -i e e sible” (1986: 74),
Ge a d M. Hopkins can be legi ima ely obse ed om he pe spec i e o he
pos mode ni y we cu en ly sha e.
I am no he i s o make his obse a ion. A ew yea s ago (1998) in a sho
ye s imula ing a icle en i led “Pos mode n Inde e minacy and he Sea ch o
Meaning”, Ha old Fulweile 1 conside ed a “nea pa adox” he ac ha Hopkins:
“… he poe o uncomp omising ai h in a de ini e “some hing”, none heless w i es
poems as con lic ed and p oblema ic as could be desi ed by he mos commi ed
New C i ic o he pas o Pos s uc u alis o oday…” (:84), and undamen ally
a ibu ed Hopkins´ pos mode ni y o he “inde e minacy” (unp edic abili y,
undecidabili y) which unde lies his bes poe y.
1 “Pos mode n Inde e minacy and he Sea ch o Meaning: Why Hopkins Ma e s o Me”,
HQ,, XXV, 3-4, Summe -Fall (: 84-87)
PILAR ABAD GARCÍA
8
Fo my pa , I sha e Fulweile ´s p oposal and wish o enla ge i wi h my own
e lec ions, namely, ha , in my iew, he pos mode n dimension in Hopkins´ poe y
is no so pa adoxical and can be conside ed o a g ea ex en a consequence bo h o
his i al and pe sonal ci cums ances, and ha , besides, his dimension becomes
highligh ed by Hopkins´ ea men o gen e.
We know ha he wo g ea cul u al ends o he 20 h cen u y, Mode nism and
Pos mode nism, a ise in pe iods o c isis (B ooke , 1992), and I am no going o
e eal now he deep his o ical c isis ha ames he Vic o ian pe iod which
con ex ualizes ou poe (when di e en cu en “mas e na a i es” begin o b eak
up) no his no-less-c i ical eligious-exis en ial con lic which se s him up also as an
odd-man-ou o Vic o ianism (Anglo-Ca holic). F om bo h c ises, his o ical and
exis en ial (le us emembe his “Deu schland” igge ing o he b eak o his
“poe ic silence”), he pos mode ni y, bo h no ional and s ylis ic, disce nible in
Hopkins´ poe y, becomes comp ehensible.
I
F om a no ional pe spec i e i s , in which we mus emembe ha he e m
pos mode n “… will ha e o be unde s ood as a condi ion connec ing e hics and
aes he ics…” i.e. a condi ion p oducing a poe y which is “ esponsi e o he
pa icula ” (McCo kle: 46); Hopkins´ bes poe y e eals ce ain ea u es cu en ly
deemed pos mode n: (i) he scep icism (Lyo a d) o his da kes poems, he Te ible
Sonne s2; (ii) he populism (B ooke ) e iden in Hopkins´ sensi i i y owa ds he
popula social s a a ep esen ed in he igu es o he a ie (“Felix Randal”), he
a me (“Ha y Ploughman”), he unemployed (“Tom´s Ga land”), he bugle (“The
Bugle ´s Fi s Communion”) e c; (iii) he ecological componen o his poe ic
“spi i ual wa ning” (B own) implici o explici in his Na u e poems (“God´s
G andeu ”3, “Binsey Popla s ( elled 1879)”, “Duns Sco us´s Ox o d”); (i )
Hopkins´ sense o he “insubs an iali y o he con empo a y” (B own), only
emedied by his hope in he Resu ec ion in his beau i ul He acli ean poem (nº 72).
2 “....Chee whom hough? The he o whose hea en-handling lung me, óo ód / Me? O me
ha ough him? O which one? is i each one? …” (Nº 64 “Ca ion Com o ”); “…. Com o e
whe e is you com o ing? / Ma y, mo he o us, whe e is you elie ? / My c ies hea e, he ds-
long; huddle in a main, a chie - / woe, wo ld-so ow …” (Nº 65 “No wo s …”); “… This o
hoa d unhea d, / Hea d unheeded, lea es me a lonely began.” (Nº 66 “To seem he s ange …”);
“… I cas o com o I can no mo e ge / By g oping ound my com o less, han blind / Eyes in
hei da k can day o hi s can ind/ Thi s ´s all-in-all in a wo ld o we . /” (Nº 69 “My own hea
le me mo e ha e pi y on …”); “… Bi ds build bu no I build; no, bu s ain, / Time´s eunuch,
and no b eed one wo k ha wakes. …” (Nº 74 “Thou a indeed jus , Lo d …”).
3 “.... Gene a ions ha e od, ha e, od, ha e od, / And all is sea ed wi h ade; blea ed,
smea ed wi h oil / And wea s man´s smudge and sha es man´s smell: he soil / Is ba e now, no
can oo eel being sod. / And o all his na u e is ne e spen ; …” (ll. 5-9 ).
HOPKINS THE VICTORIAN POSTMODERN/-IST… 9
A colla e al ques ion he e is, say, he social anshis o ici y and e e sibili y o
Hopkins´ ecological plea. As has been s udied4, ou popula o non-academic
pos mode n con empo a ies o en make use o Hopkins´ lines (especially om he
Na u e poems) o suppo ecology mo emen s.
Beside hese ea u es, wo o he s add o Hopkinsian pos mode ni y: an an i-
ealism (G a ) and i s e olu ion owa ds a Neo- ealism (B ooke ), in my iew
singula ly e iden in he wo “shipw eck poems”, he “Deu schland” and he
“Eu ydice”, whe e, in he o me , a ie cely ly ical an i- ealism in he clima ic
s anza 28 appea s combined wi h agmen s o o e whelming ealism (“D”: s . 13,
14, 16, 17; “E”: s . 10, 11, 15-18). This combina ion con e ges wi h au o-
biog aphical gen e (B ooke ), (i.e. in his case wi h Hopkins´ sensi i i y owa ds
shipw ecks: one wonde s wha he migh ha e done wi h he sinking o he Ti anic
o ins ance) and also wi h he consequence o such combina ion: he ansg ession
o bounda ies be ween ic ion and eali y (D´Haen), a ansg ession which also
a ec s gen e limi a ions.
This las aspec has p omp ed me o s a my conside a ions wi h ega d o
Hopkins´ pos mode ni y on a gene ic-s ylis ic le el which will make up he second
pa o his exposé. So a I ha e b ie ly del ed in o Hopkins as pos mode n, le me
now ollow he ail o Hopkins as pos mode nis .
II
F. Lyo a d b ings oge he he abo e-men ioned ela ionship be ween
anshis o icism and he pos mode n condi ion in a discou se esponsi e o he
o mal o aes he ic dimension o he same: in Lyo a d´s e ms, a ela ion “…
pe pe ually lushing ou a i ices o ep esen a ion which make i possible o
subo dina e hough o he gaze…” (1986: 80). This aspec leads me o e oke he
on ological dominan 5 which, acco ding o McHale, p esides Pos mode nism6: “…
Pos mode nis w i ing is designed o aise such ques ions as: … Wha is he mode
o exis ence o a ex …? e c (1986: 60).
The modes o exis ence o a pos mode n ex , he la e ´s “… on ological
plu ali y and ins abili y…” (: 60) can be summed up in:
(a) an essen ial agmen a ism (Woods: 6) exp essi e o non- ealis s a egies
o li e a y ep esen a ion (Pe lo , 1996) which becomes a so o
a omiza ion o ep esen ed eali y;
4 Fennell, F.L. 1996. “Familia Hopkins: The Popula Use o His Poe y”, HQ,, XXII, 1-2,
Win e -Sp ing (31-41).
5 A non-uni ied concep , p aised by McHale gi en i s wide ange o applica ion: “… he
dominan is a “ loa ing” concep , applicable a di e en le els o analysis and o e di e en
anges o phenomena…” (1986, 55-56) .
6 In con as o he epis emological which ules Mode nism.
PILAR ABAD GARCÍA
10
(b) such a omiza ion p oduces agmen ed subjec s o unce ain iden i y
(Pe lo , 1966) a ac ha , in poe y, leads o a consis en dissimula ion o
blu ing o he domina ing ly ic “I”. This is a ele an phenomenon
because i e eals he amous “pos mode n econ igu a ion o he ly ic”
(McCo kle, 1997) and implies “…a e- isioning o he au ho ial oice and
i s ecep ion…” by which poe y dis ances i sel om indi idual emo ion
and akes shape in a plu ali y o oices (polyphony): “… Pa ody, elegy,
allusion and all o ms o he e ogeneous oices su ace in he pos mode n
ly ic…” (: 46);
(c) he will o au hen ici y agains mode nis a i ice, singula ly e iden in he
poe ic ealm which usually embodies he p esence o li ing speech
(dialogism) (Ke n, 1978).
Beside hese, ano he mode o exis ence o a ex (pos mode n o no ) has o do,
undoub edly, wi h i s ea men o gen e , an aspec whose absence o bounda ies in
pos mode n ex s is highligh ed by Hassan (1985: 123) and o he s (Pe lo , 1989;
Woods, 1999) as one o he speci ic ea u es o Pos mode nism7. This aspec has
also been signi ican ly ins umen al in a anscending o he exclusi e associa ion o
poe y wi h he ly ic (Pe lo , 1996).
The lack o gene ic limi a ions leads o gene ic combina ion o , a he , o he
hyb idiza ion o he gene ic uni e sals o en consubs an ial wi h he pos mode n
ex (De ida, 1979; Cohen, 1991). This ques ion p omp s me o conside
Jakobson´s concep o he dominan as “ he ocusing componen o a wo k o a ”8,
as well as Opacki´s concep o “ oyal gen e”; he la e also highligh s he ac ha :
“… The hyb idiza ion o gen e o ms is a de e minan o he e olu ion o poe y…”
(Du : 121).
These acknowledged p ocesses o poe ic e olu ion and gen e hyb idiza ion by
which he h ee gene ic uni e sals (ly ical, na a i e and d ama ic) combine in
di e en p opo ion whils one o hem becomes dominan 9, p oduce he no o ious
pos mode n e ec o blu ing he ly ic subjec , and, in my iew, also ake place in
he bes Hopkinsian poe y, a phenomenon which, o page limi a ions, I am going
o commen on in he es ic ed con ex o he wo “shipw eck poems”.
7 Pos mode n ins abili y, ans e ed o he ma e o gen e has p oduced a pe manen end
owa ds “… non a ionalis ic and wholesale app op ia ion o o he gen es, bo h high and
popula …” (Pe lo , 1989: iii).
8 In Jakobson´s e ms: “… The dominan may be de ined as he ocusing componen o a
wo k o a : i ules, de e mines, and ans o ms he emaining componen s. I is he dominan
which gua an ees he in eg i y o s uc u e…” (1987: 41).
9 In a way ha : “... wi hin he se o poe ic no ms alid o a gi en poe ic gen e, elemen s
which we e o iginally seconda y become essen ial and p ima y. On he o he hand, he elemen s
which we e o iginally he dominan ones become subsidia y and op ional…” (Jakobson, 1987:
44).
HOPKINS THE VICTORIAN POSTMODERN/-IST… 11
III
The ques ion o gene ic desc ip ion and he hyb id poem is la gely conside ed
by Pos mode n Gen e Theo y om he wo miles ones as ep esen ed by he
con ibu ions o Jacques De ida (“The Law o Gen e”, 1979) and wel e yea s
la e , Ralph Cohen (“Gen e Theo y, Li e a y His o y and His o ical Change”,
1991)10, miles ones which pu an end o he adi ional heo y o gen e
(classi ica o y) and p oclaim he cu en econcep ualisa ion o he same as
desc ip i e11.
The desc ip i e app oach o gen e a ou s an analysis o he hyb id pos mode n
poe ic ex which, om a discu si e o s ylis ic poin o iew, o en combines he
h ee modes12 o discou se, belonging o he h ee gene ic uni e sals, in such a way
ha he la e emain ecognizable. In Alas ai Fowle ´s e ms: “… hyb id mix u e
depends on he componen s emaining un used…”, and Fowle also emphasizes he
ele ance o i les and allusions as “gen e ma ke s” ( : 88 ).
Ano he gen e heo is , Opacki, is mo e speci ic and openly speaks o s ylis ic
gen e con amina ion o “s ylisa ion”, a phenomenon which he unde s ands as “…
connec ed wi h he in oduc ion – in o he hea o one gen e – o s ylis ic elemen s
o a second gen e…” ( Du : 125).
The p ocess o hyb idiza ion can be, in my iew, e ec i ely obse ed in he
poe ic ex aking in o accoun , o ins ance, on he one hand, Paul He nadi´s
ca ego isa ion (1972, 1978) o h ee modes o discou se: ly ical (= ep esen ing
ision); na a i e ( = imagining ac ion) and d ama ic ( = ep esen ing ac ion o
dialogue); and, on he o he , he mo e o malis concep ualisa ion o he ly ic mode
o e ed by Kä e Hambu ge (1977, 1986) as “u e ance o eali y” (énoncé de
éali é) (1986: 54), an u e ance u e ed by he ly ic subjec who is able o ans o m
he poem in o an imp ession o li ed eali y.
IV
The hyb idiza ion phenomenon in “The W eck o he Deu schland” and “The
Loss o he Eu ydice” o e s, in p inciple, a s ong inclina ion owa ds he na a i e
mode wi h bo h i les as gen e ma ke s e oking wo di e en s o ies wi h a
powe ul cen al conce n: shipw eck. Also, he s o ies a e old a he ex ensi ely in
10 See: Dua e, 1999 and Abad, 2002.
11 Which, mo e speci ically: “... doesn´ limi he numbe o possible kinds and doesn´
p esc ibe ules o au ho s …. I supposes ha adi ional kinds may be “mixed” and p oduce a
new kind … Mode n gen e heo ies minimize classi ica ion and maximize cla i ica ion and
in e p e a ion …” (Cohen, in Lucy (ed): 295-296).
12 Modes o u e ance, modali és d´énoncia ion, (Schae e : 73).

PILAR ABAD GARCÍA
12
he 3 d pe son, and, as a consequence, bo h poems exceed he usual b e i y o he
ly ic; in addi ion, he s o ies con ain memo able cha ac e s.
This gene ic-na a i e mode is o simila leng h in bo h poems (12 s anzas in
he “D”: 12-17, 19-21, 24-25; and 13 in he “E”), wi h an also simila ime-
sequence:
(a) he peace ul s a o he oyage wi h he espec i e accoun o passenge s
(200 in he “Deu schland”, s . 12) and c ew (300 in he “Eu ydice”, s . 1);
(b) he s o m causing he shipw eck wi h he da e and he speci ic geog aphical
posi ion (“D”, “…Dec. 7 h,1875” and s . 13,14; “E”, “Founde ed Ma ch
24, 1878” and s . 8);
(c) he despe a e si ua ion o he shipw ecked cha ac e s ep esen ed in he i e
Ge man F anciscan nuns in he “D” (s . 19-20), and mo e indi idualized in
he “E” which includes he agic lo o he cap ain (Ma cus Ha e, s . 12)
and he sailo Sydney Fle che (“B is ol b ed”, s . 15).
These cha ac e s appea ai ly cha ac e ised in bo h poems: he cou ageous
Mo he Supe io is ep esen ed unde he h ee possibili ies o cha ac e iza ion:
desc ip ion (lioness, p ophe ess, i ginal ongue, s . 17; all nun, s . 19), ac ion and
exp ession (s . 24); and he no-less-cou ageous sailo Fle che appea s cha ac e ised
by ac ion, in his pain ul igh wi h he “win y wa es” (s . 18) and ex ensi ely
desc ibed in his i ile appeal (s . 19, 20, 21).
These os ensibly na a i e gene ic componen s appea combined wi h o he
ly ic ones such as: e se o m ( he “D” oc e s: abab cbca; he “E” qua e s: aa bb), a
mos pos mode n ea u e13, and he p esence o he 1s pe son ly ic subjec ; and hen
o he d ama ic ones, bo h scenic and dialogic. Indeed, only ul ima ely does he ly ic
componen become dominan gi en i s blu ing p ocess mainly de e mined by he
s ongly na a i e su ace e ec .
The scenic componen becomes pa icula ly eye-ca ching wi h wo memo able
scenes in he “D”: (i) he b a e and gene ous man who loses his li e ying o no
a ail o sa e o he people (s . 16); (ii ) he ex ended scene which ells o he agic
a e o he “ all nun” h oughou 5 s anzas (17; 19-22). The d ama ic componen is
also e iden in he “E” wi h one simila ly ex ended and no-less-memo able scene
which ells o he no-less- agic des iny o sailo Fle che and which includes 6
s anzas (15-21).
This combina ion o hyb idiza ion o he h ee uni e sal modes o discou se is
esponsible bo h o he episodic o sequen ial aspec o he poems and o hei
pos mode n essen ial agmen a ism.
Abo e all else bo h poems s a (and conclude) ly ically. The “Deu schland”,
mo e ex ensi e, wi h i s i s i e s anzas showing he di ec p esence o he
domina ing ly ic “I”, whils he nex i e (6-11) gi e up he i s pe son ly ic subjec
13 “... Fo mal s uc u es … o me ical o ms a e ound h oughou he p ac ice o pos mode n
poe y…” (McCo kle: 49).
HOPKINS THE VICTORIAN POSTMODERN/-IST… 13
al oge he , his emaining absen un il s anzas 24, 28, 32. In o he wo ds, he ly ic
subjec is explici only in 8 o he 35 s anzas which build up he poem, a ac ha
adds o he abo e-men ioned e ec p oduced by he na a i e componen as he
main i em esponsible o he dissimula ion o he seminal ly ic elemen .
The blu ing e ec is e en mo e s iking in he “Eu ydice”, whe e he i s
pe son ly ic subjec appea s la e in he poem and is explici in only 3 (22, 23, 25) o
he 30 s anzas o he poem, a ac ha again highligh s he supe io os ensibili y o
he na a i e mode in he poem.
The abo e-men ioned ime-sequence builds up he “s a ” and “co e” o he
di e en shipw eck s o ies, ye hei “ou come”, as we shall see, is exp essed in
ly ical e ms, e ms which include wo o he pos mode nis ea u es. The i s one is
dialogic, inclusi e o he speech ac o in poe y, which helps in he p ocess o
hyb idiza ion and again b ings in o he poe ic discou se he gene ic-d ama ic
componen ale o he second pe son p onoun (you), a he THOU o THEE, a
p esence, by he way, which aises g ea expec a ions wi h ega d o he ly ic
subjec ´s add essee. The second one is polyphonic, wi h he ly ic subjec
d ama ising o he oices, he nun´s in he “D” and se e al in he “E” (s 11, 13,14).
The combina ion o ly ical and na a i e elemen s appea s mo e agmen ed in
he “D”, gi en also he mo e e iden ly in ol ed si ua ion o he na a o /ly ic
subjec , o he ex en ha i s clima ic s anza 28 combines he h ee modal
possibili ies: ly ical-d ama ic = 1s and 2nd pe son p onouns (/ Bu how shall I …/
Reach me a …/ S ike you he sigh o i ?…) and na a i e = 3 d pe son ( / He was o
cu e he ex emi y whe e he had cas he …/ ).
Bu , as I ha e said, he ou come o bo h poems is ly ical. The wo poems
“ ep esen ision” (He nadi) in he sense ha he na a o / ly ic subjec has NOT
expe ienced i s hand he ha d expe ience o shipw eck and i s a e ma h, as e iden
in ano he scenic (d ama ic) componen :
/Away in he lo eable wes ,
On a pas o al o ehead o Wales,
I was unde a oo he e, I was a es ,
And hey he p ey o he gales; …/ (D. s 24)
Howe e , he essen ial Ch is ian “ ision” which inspi es and uni e salises he
poems, o , mo e speci ically, he Ch is ologically Hopkinsian ision o he agic
e en s, p oduces he undamen al ly ic e ec : i c ea es he imp ession o li ed
eali y (Hambu ge ). In o he wo ds, he ly ic subjec in e nalises he objec , he
ans o ms objec i e eali y in o exis en ial o subjec i e eali y, and by so doing he
gi es he imp ession ha he is pa o he e en s:
/ She o he black-abou ai , o he b eake , he hickly
Falling lakes, o he h ong ha ca ches and quails
Was calling `O Ch is , Ch is come quickly´:…/ (D. s .24)
PILAR ABAD GARCÍA
14
And a simila e ec akes place in he “Eu ydice” (s 9), wi h also he ul ima e
appeal o he igu e o Ch is he Sa iou :
/ Bu o Ch is lo d o hunde
C ouch; lay knee by ea h low unde :
Holies , lo elies , b a es ,
Sa e my he o, O He o sa es ./ (s 28)
As a inal consequence he wo shipw eck poems ollow he pa e n o he
pos mode n long poem om he poin o iew o gen e: bo h a e a anged
pa a ac ically o discon inuously “… as an accumula ion o ly ic momen s … and
no as a na a i e mo ing owa d a culmina ing closu e…” (McCo kle: 48).
REFERENCES
Abad, Pila . “The Challenge o Gen e: Hyb idiza ion in Pos mode n B i ish Poe y”, ES, 24: 27-40,
2002.
B ooke , Pe e . Mode nism/Pos mode nism. New Yo k: Longman, 1992.
B own, Da id. The Poe y o Pos mode ni y. Basings oke: MacMillan, 1994 .
Cohen, Ralph. “Gen e Theo y, Li e a y His o y and His o ical Change”, in: Pe kins, Da id, ed. 1991.
Theo e ical Issues in Li e a y His o y. London: Ha a d UP (: 85-113).
Cohen, Ralph. “Do Pos mode n Gen es Exis ?”. Ed. Lucy, Niall. 2000. Pos mode n Li e a y Theo y.
Ox o d: Blackwell (: 293-309).
De ida, Jacques. “The Law o Gen e”. Ed. A idge, De ek. 1992. Jacques De ida: Ac s o Li e a u e.
London: Rou ledge (: 221-252); Du ,Donald, ed. Mode n Gen e Theo y. 2000: 219-231,
(1979).
D´Haen, T. “Pos mode n Fic ion: Fo m and Func ion”, Neophilologus. Janua y: 144-153, 1987.
Dua e, Joao Fe ei a. “In oduc ion: Gen e Ma e s”, EJES (Eu opean Jou nal o English S udies), 3, 1,
3-10, 1999.
Du , Donald, ed. Mode n Gen e Theo y. London: Longman, 2000.
Fennell, F ank L. “Familia Hopkins: The Popula Use o His Poe y”, Hopkins Qua e ly, XXII, 1-2,
Win e -Sp ing (: 31-41), 1996.
Fowle , Alas ai . Kinds o Li e a u e. An In oduc ion o he Theo y o Gen es and Modes. Ox o d:
Cla endon ,1997 (1982).
Fulweile , Ha old. “Pos mode n Inde e minacy and he Sea ch o Meaning: Why Hopkins Ma e s o
Me”, The Hopkins Qua e ly, XXV, 3-4, Summe -Fall (:84-87), 1998.
Ga dne , W.H. & No man H. MacKenzie (eds) . The Poems o Ge a d M.Hopkins. OUP, 1978.
G a , Ge a d. Li e a u e Agains I sel . Chicago: Chicago UP, 1979.
Habe mas, Jü gen. The Philosophical Discou se o Mode ni y. Cam.: The MIT P ess, 1987.
Hambu ge , Kä e. Logique des Gen es Li é ai es. Pa is: Seuil, 1986. (1977).
Hassan, I. “The Cul u e o Pos mode nism”, Theo y, Cul u e & Socie y, 2, 1985.
He nadi, Paul. Beyond Gen e: New Di ec ions in Li e a y Classi ica ion. I haca: Co nell UP, 1972.
Jakobson, Roman. “The Dominan ”. R. Jakobson, Language in Li e a u e. Eds. K. Pomo ska & S.
Rudy, London: Ha a d UP, 1987.
HOPKINS THE VICTORIAN POSTMODERN/-IST… 15
Lyo a d, F ançois. The Pos mode n Condi ion: A Repo on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U. o Minneso a
P ess, 1984.
McCo kle, James. “The Insc ip ion o Pos mode nism in Poe y”. In e na ional Pos mode nism.
Theo y & Li e a y P ac ice. Eds. Hans Be ens & Douwe Fokkema. Ams e dam: John
Benjamins (: 43-50), 1997.
McHale, B ian. “Change o Dominan om Mode nis o Pos mode nis W i ing”, in: App oaching
Pos mode nism. Eds. H. Be ens & D. Fokkema, Ams e dam: John Benjamins (: 53-79), 1986.
Opacki, I eneusz. “Royal Gen es”. Du ,ed. 2000 (: 118-126).
Pe lo , Ma jo ie. (ed) Pos mode n Gen es. London: U. o Oklahoma P ess, 1989.
Pe lo , Ma jo ie. The Dance o he In ellec . S udies in he Poe y o he Pound T adi ion. E ans on,
Ill.: No hwes e n UP , 1996 (1985).
Schae e , Jean-Ma ie. Qu´es -ce qu´un gen e li é ai e?. Pa is: Seuil, 1989.
Woods, Tim. Beginning Pos mode nism. Manches e UP, 1999.