How might those who shared an 1819 birthdate be placed in a broader generational context? We, like the Victorians, speak of generations in indefensibly indistinct and inconsistent ways, and the members of the 1819 cohort have been grouped with various generational bedfellows. Take the poet Arthur Hugh Clough (1819–1861). For David Newsome, he is one of a generation which followed Thomas Arnold and John Keble, which included Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815–1881), Edward Meyrick Goulburn (1818–1897), Benjamin Jowett (1817– 1893), Stafford Northcote (1818–1887), Frederick Temple (1821–1902), and Matthew Arnold (1822–1888);1 for Bernard Reardon he is bracketed with Tennyson (1809–1892), Browning (1812–1889), Arnold, George Eliot (1819–1880), George Meredith (1828– 1909), Thomas Hardy (1840–1928), and Mrs Humphrey Ward (1851–1920);2 whereas P. G. Scott puts Clough in a generation of ‘Oxford Liberals including Jowett, Stanley, Arnold and [ James Anthony] Froude [(1818–94)]’.3 Such variety of association and of age demonstrates the problematics of achieving any form of useful, stable generational groupings. Our theoretical apparatus, such as it is, for generational analysis, is rooted in the twentieth century, at a point at which generations became self-conscious identities. Under the influence of the paradigmatic work of Karl Mannheim, the tendency has been to look to generational cohorts with birthdates spanning between 25 and 33 years, and associated with the cultural revolt of youth, developing out of specific conditions and influences coinciding broadly with a period of ‘emerging maturity’. But Victorian experience diverged from later dynamics in a number of ways. In the nineteenth century, the language of generations was almost as ubiquitous as in the twentieth, but generational affiliations were less readily adopted, and generational solidarities are much less obviously discerned.4 And most significantly, an initial exploration of patterns of authorship in the Victorian periodical press, and the configuration of artistic schools and cliques (see Figure 1), suggests that the traditional 25–33 year span is too long, perhaps unduly influenced by the natural cycle of generational succession within families, and that for the Victorians at least, it makes more sense to identify successive generations of roughly 15 years in duration.5 As a rough schematic, these can be divided as indicated in Table 1.

中文翻译：

---

维多利亚时代的维多利亚时代和中维多利亚时代

那些拥有 1819 年出生日期的人如何被置于更广泛的世代背景中？我们和维多利亚时代的人一样，以不可辩驳的含糊不清和不一致的方式谈论几代人，1819 年队列的成员被归为不同代的同床人。以诗人亚瑟·休·克拉夫（Arthur Hugh Clough，1819-1861 年）为例。对于大卫纽瑟姆来说，他是追随托马斯阿诺德和约翰凯布尔的一代人之一，其中包括亚瑟彭林斯坦利 (1815–1881)、爱德华梅里克古尔本 (1818–1897)、本杰明乔维特 (1817–1893)、斯塔福德诺斯科特 (1818 –1887)、Frederick Temple (1821–1902) 和 Matthew Arnold (1822–1888)；1 对于 Bernard Reardon，他与 Tennyson (1809–1892)、Browning (1812–1889)、Arnold、George Eliot (1819– 1880)、乔治·梅雷迪思 (1828–1909)、托马斯·哈代 (1840–1928) 和汉弗莱·沃德夫人 (1851–1920)；2 而 PG 斯科特将克拉夫归入“牛津自由党，包括乔维特、斯坦利、阿诺德和 [詹姆斯安东尼] 弗劳德 [(1818–94)]”。3 这种不同的联系和年龄表明实现任何形式的有用、稳定的世代分组。我们用于代际分析的理论机器植根于 20 世纪，在这一点上，代际成为自我意识的身份。在卡尔曼海姆的范式工作的影响下，倾向于寻找出生日期跨度在 25 至 33 岁之间的世代队列，并与青年的文化反抗相关联，在特定条件和影响下发展，与一个时期广泛重合'新兴成熟'。但维多利亚时代的经历在许多方面与后来的动态不同。