Biographia Literaria

By SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE

Introduction

Biographia Literaria, written in twenty-four chapters, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, was first published in two volumes in 1817. A later edition, released in 1847, included additional notes and biographical information provided by Coleridge’s daughter, Sara.

The first volume focuses on Coleridge’s friendships with poets Robert Southey and William Wordsworth. He also discusses the influences that shaped his philosophical thinking, from his early teachers to philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Johann Fichte, and Friedrich von Schelling. In this section, Coleridge presents his well-known distinction between “fancy” and “imagination.” In the second volume, Coleridge shifts his attention to literary criticism. He offers his views on the creative process and explores the historical origins of various elements in poetry.

Biographia Literaria is considered the most significant work of literary criticism from the English Romantic period. It brought together philosophy and literary criticism in a new and lasting way, leaving a strong influence on later thinkers and writers.

About the Author

Samuel Taylor Coleridge is widely recognised for his epic poem Kubla Khan, which he famously envisioned in a dream but was unable to complete due to an unexpected interruption. He is also known for introducing the concept of the “willing suspension of disbelief,” a key idea that allows readers to appreciate fiction and art by temporarily accepting the unreal as real.

Coleridge’s life, however, was marked by personal struggles. He battled opium addiction for much of his adult life, which affected both his health and his ability to fulfil responsibilities. His addiction began with a legal prescription in 1800 and continued until his death in 1834.

Born in 1772 in Ottery St. Mary, England, Coleridge became one of the leading figures of the English Romantic movement. He was a prolific writer, producing poems, plays, essays, articles, and speeches. His immense creativity was so notable that the writer Virginia Woolf once described him as “not a man, but a swarm.” One of his most significant achievements was co-authoring Lyrical Ballads with his close friend William Wordsworth, a collection that laid the foundation for Romanticism.

Despite his brilliance, Coleridge struggled with depression and often failed to meet deadlines or manage the demands of everyday life. Although he produced many remarkable works, history often reflects on the potential that went unfulfilled due to his personal challenges.

Summary

Chapter XVII

In this chapter, Coleridge examines and critiques some of William Wordsworth’s ideas about poetry, particularly his emphasis on “low and rustic life.” Coleridge argues that such a life is not naturally suited for producing refined or elevated human language. He believes that the best parts of language come from philosophers and thinkers rather than from common people like clowns or shepherds. For Coleridge, poetry should aspire to be ideal and universal, more like the elevated language used by Milton, which he considers closer to the essence of real life than the speech of rural villagers.

Coleridge acknowledges and praises Wordsworth’s attempt to reform poetic diction. He admires how Wordsworth highlights the truth of human emotions and the proper use of metaphors in early poetry, in contrast to the artificiality of modern poetic styles. Coleridge agrees that Wordsworth’s efforts to focus on emotional truth have been largely successful and have influenced even those who oppose his views.

However, Coleridge expresses his own disagreements with parts of Wordsworth’s theory, particularly the idea that poetry should primarily use the language of ordinary people. He argues that this approach only applies to certain forms of poetry and even then, it may not be necessary or beneficial. Wordsworth, according to Coleridge, did not choose rustic life to mock it but because he believed that in such simple environments, human passions are more sincere, less restricted, and easier to communicate. Wordsworth felt that rural life’s connection with the beauty and permanence of nature made its emotions more powerful and lasting. While Coleridge appreciates this view, he questions whether the language of common people is the best medium for poetry overall.

Coleridge comments on Wordsworth’s poems, saying that the rural characters in some of his works are not truly from simple country life. Their thoughts and language are shaped by their independence and basic education, especially their familiarity with the Bible. He argues that not everyone improves by living in the countryside. People need some education or sensitivity to benefit from rural life, or they may become selfish or insensitive. He also believes that poetry should show universal traits that represent the whole humanity, not just individual qualities. This idea is in alignment with Aristotle’s view that poetry is essentially ideal and universal.

Coleridge further questions the idea that poets should use the language of rural people (rustics) because it is simple and natural. He responds to Wordsworth’s claims that the language of rural people is better because they interact daily with nature, and are not influenced by social vanity. Coleridge disagrees, arguing that when you clean up a rustic’s language by removing local dialects and errors, it is essentially the same as any educated person’s speech, except that rural people have fewer ideas and their language reflects this. He also suggest that educated people, compared to rural people, focus more on understanding how things connect and work, rather than just describing individual facts or experiences.

Coleridge also challenges the idea that the best part of language comes from rural life. He argues that a rustic’s understanding of the world is limited, and his or her vocabulary would be small and vague. The best part of human language, he claim, comes from reflecting on thoughts and feelings, and this kind of language isn’t common among uneducated people. Coleridge points out that much of the language used by rural people today originally came from educated institutions like universities and churches, which eventually spread to everyday use.

Finally, Coleridge criticises the idea that the purified language of rural life is more permanent and philosophical than the language of poets who use complex and unusual expressions. He argues that good poets should use clear, logical language that expresses natural feelings, rather than relying on confusing or flashy language.

Coleridge challenges certain ideas about poetry and language put forward by Wordsworth. Wordsworth claims that poetry should use “the real language of men,” especially the language of people living in simple, rural settings, and that there is no significant difference between the language of prose and poetry. Coleridge disagrees with this. He first points out that the term “real language” is misleading because everyone’s language differs depending on their knowledge, experiences, and emotions. Each person’s way of speaking has individual traits, class influences, and commonly used words. Great writers like Hooker, Bacon, and Burke may use the same language as educated people, but they introduce new and complex ideas. Their language isn’t vastly different from ordinary educated speech, while Wordsworth’s attempt to use rustic language differs significantly from how real peasants speak.

Coleridge argues that If you remove the unique traits from any group’s language, what remains is a common, shared language, not something specific to rural life. He also notes that the language of country people varies greatly depending on local factors, like education, politics, and community influences. Therefore, the “ordinary” language Wordsworth praises isn’t truly found in rural life, and adopting it for poetry would require just as many changes as using the language of other social classes, like tradesmen or craftsmen.

He continues to argue against Wordsworth’s ideas about language in poetry, particularly the claim that people use a special kind of language when they are emotionally excited (such as in moments of joy, grief, or anger). The writer points out that even in moments of strong emotion, a person can only use the words and ideas they already know. Passion doesn’t create new words or ideas; it simply makes the mind work faster and brings forward thoughts or images that are already familiar.

Coleridge acknowledges that it is possible to apply the same approach in a poem that some people use while talking. People repeat themselves or use familiar phrases that don’t add much meaning, just to hold on to their thoughts. They do this either to buy time while they gather their thoughts, or simply to fill empty space when they have nothing new to say. It is as in a small theatre group, where the same actor keeps going on and off stage to avoid having gaps in a scene, like in the processions in plays like Macbeth or Henry VIII. But this doesn’t add anything useful to the play.

At the same time, Coleridge acknowledges that some repetitions, when driven by intense feelings, can be powerful and beautiful in poetry. He praises a biblical example from the Song of Deborah, where repetition strengthens the emotional impact: “At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.” This kind of repetition reflects deep passion and has great poetic value.

Chapter XVIII

Contrary to Wordsworth’s belief, Coleridge argues that the language of poetry is different from that of prose. He begins by stating that trying to write poetry in the same way as prose is both impossible and pointless. To write poetry, one must already understand the language he or she is using. He starts with the question how a poet could choose words without using their own judgement, because in poetry, the way words are arranged is just as important as the words themselves. Therefore, both the selection of words and their order must involve personal judgement.

In regular speech, especially among less educated people, thoughts are often communicated in a disconnected way. The speaker lacks the ability to organise their ideas and present them as a whole. This separates their speech from that of more educated people, who can arrange words in a more logical, clear way.

The writer then looks at a stanza from Lyrical Ballads and compares it with how a common person might say the same thing. While the poem uses simple words, the structure and order are more polished and compact than everyday speech. The writer also compares a stanza from Wordsworth’s The Thorn and points out how it does not resemble ordinary speech. Instead, it is more poetic and imaginative. Even though Wordsworth might have aimed for simplicity, the poetic structure and imagination elevate his writing beyond everyday language.

One key point remains, and it is the most important. The primary purpose of the earlier discussion was to examine this point. Wordsworth asserts that “there is no essential difference between the language of prose and poetry.” However, prose, particularly in well-organised and logical writing, differs from everyday conversation. It is expected to differ, just as reading is not the same as talking. If the difference Wordsworth denies is not merely about the choice of words but the style of writing itself, then it seems reasonable to expect an even greater distinction between poetry and prose than between prose and casual conversation. However, if a writer like Wordsworth has already anticipated an objection to his view as natural, then his response must carry a meaning that either has been, is, or could be debated. Therefore, the task is to find another interpretation of the term “essential difference,” beyond the mere use of shared words in prose and poetry.

The question of whether there should be a specific group of words in English, similar to the poetic language used in Greek or Italian, is of less importance. The number of such words in English would be very small. Even in Greek and Italian, the differences are often not in the words themselves but in slight variations in how they are used. These variations come from old grammatical forms that were once commonly used in particular regions. These forms became associated with poetry because the early poets from these regions were highly respected and admired.

Coleridge argues that Wordsworth denies any “essential difference” between the language of poetry and prose. Wordsworth claims that much of good poetry, except for the metre, doesn’t differ from good prose. He supports his argument with a quotation from a sonnet by Thomas Gray, saying that the valuable lines in the poem are similar to prose, apart from the rhyme and a minor word change. Coleridge disagrees with Wordsworth’s view. He states that while it is possible for certain phrases or sentences to work well in both prose and poetry, this does not mean the two forms of writing are identical. The key issue is whether there are specific ways of arranging words and sentences that are appropriate in prose but would feel out of place in poetry, and vice versa. The author argues that this difference does exist, and that there are styles of expression suited to one form but not the other.

The origin of metre can be traced to a balance in the mind. This balance is created by a natural effort to control or restrain emotions. It is easy to explain how this helpful struggle is supported by the very emotions it tries to control. The balance between these opposing forces becomes organized into metre through an intentional act of will and judgment. This act is done consciously and with the goal of creating pleasure.

If we accept these ideas, we can draw two reasonable conclusions about what we should expect in metrical writing. First, since the elements of metre come from a heightened state of emotion, the metre should also be accompanied by the natural language of strong feelings. Second, since metre is formed by an intentional act, meant to combine pleasure with emotion, signs of the poet’s deliberate choice should be clear in the language.

These two conditions must exist together. There must not only be cooperation but a true union. This means a blending of emotion and will, of spontaneous feeling and intentional choice. This union can only be shown through frequent use of forms and figures of speech. These were originally born from strong emotions, but now they are shaped by the poet’s skill and power. This use of lively and imaginative language is more common in poetry, where the emotion is intentionally maintained to give pleasure. This kind of language would not be as acceptable in other forms of writing, where such emotion is not necessary. He finally asserts that in poetry, there is an unspoken agreement between the poet and the reader. The reader expects, and the poet is obliged to provide, a certain level of pleasurable excitement.

Coleridge reflects on the effects of metre in poetry. He argues that metre, by itself, heightens emotions and grabs attention through a subtle sense of surprise and curiosity. However, this impact only becomes meaningful when combined with appropriate content that sustains the emotions stirred by the metre. Coleridge compares metre to yeast, which, though insignificant on its own, adds vitality when blended with the right ingredients in a poem.

Coleridge critiques Wordsworth’s approach to metre, noting that Wordsworth always discusses its effects alongside other poetic elements, but does not explain how metre functions independently. Coleridge challenges the notion that metre is the sole factor responsible for the popularity of certain works, pointing out that many well-loved prose tales, such as Goody Two-Shoes or Jack the Giant-Killer, have remained timeless without the aid of metre.

He further criticises specific poems in Wordsworth’s own collections, arguing that some, such as Anecdote for Fathers and The Sailor’s Mother, might have been more effective as prose. In these instances, the metre feels forced or unnecessary, especially when applied to everyday, colloquial language. Coleridge finds that in poems like The Sailor’s Mother, the use of metre does not justify itself and seems out of place.

Coleridge argues that metre is essential to poetry and that without it, poetry is incomplete. He suggests that metre (the structured rhythm or pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables in poetry) naturally belongs to poetry and enhances it. Even when metre is combined with elements that are not inherently poetic—such as everyday language or prose-like content—the presence of metre still gives these elements a poetic quality. Essentially, the structured rhythm of metre brings something poetic to the writing, even if the other components are not traditionally poetic in nature. Drawing on Wordsworth’s views, Coleridge explains that poetry always involves passion, which he defines as an excited state of the mind. This heightened emotional state affects the poet’s language, much like strong emotions such as love or fear alter how we express ourselves. As he writes:

And as every passion has its proper pulse, so will it likewise have its characteristic modes of expression.”

Coleridge cites poets like Donne and Dryden, asserting that the intensity of their writing stems as much from their own passion as from the subjects they describe.

Furthermore, Coleridge argues that humans are naturally driven to seek unity and harmony, and in a poem, all parts should be in balance with the most significant elements. He views poetry as an imitative art, where the poet blends similarities and differences creatively. Finally, Coleridge appeals to the example of great poets across history, concluding that there is, and ought to be, an essential distinction between the language of prose and that of metrical composition (poetry).

Next, Coleridge questions Wordsworth’s judgement of Gray’s sonnet. Wordsworth dismisses certain lines as unworthy, but Coleridge disagrees, arguing that these lines, except for the first two, are just as poetic as the ones Wordsworth praises. He believes the differences between these lines are small and do not support Wordsworth’s negative opinion.

Then he examines the nature of poetic language, pointing out that some phrases can work well in both poetry and prose, while others cannot. He criticises Wordsworth’s preference for simplicity, suggesting that adding descriptive words can actually make poetry stronger. To support this, the author uses examples from Spenser’s The Faerie Queene, showing that great poetry often uses words and images that stand out from everyday language.

Next, the author points out problems with one of Gray’s lines. However, he explains that the issue is not because it differs from prose, but because the imagery is confused. Finally, the author turns to certain poems, like Daniel’s The Civil Wars. He criticises them for having a style that is too plain and similar to prose, saying that this lack of poetic distinctiveness weakens the impact of the poetry, even though the language and content may still be good.

Coleridge, once again, addresses the consequences of strictly following Wordsworth’s theory of using common, everyday language in poetry. One result could be that metre, the main difference between verse and prose, might only be visible to the eye, not heard in the rhythm. He argues that this would lead to prose-like lines within a poem, which deviates from one of its essential quality. He criticizes the idea that metre and rhyme can always ensure poetic distinction, suggesting that poor writers could misuse them as easily as poetic language. Good poets, he claims, should not merely copy the language of everyday speech but follow principles like grammar, logic, and psychology. These principles, guided by experience and imagination, help poets convey emotions like anger or jealousy. The poet’s imagination, not just observation, allows them to choose the right language for these emotions. He argues that poetry cannot be reduced to rules because it is a creative art, not a mechanical process. The imagination must guide poetic style. The author praises works of genuine poetic passion but criticizes forced or artificial expressions of emotion, such as in some odes to abstract ideas found in earlier collections.

Coleridge criticizes poets, like Cowley, for using a confusing style that tries to imitate Pindar’s odes. He describes how he read Cowley’s preface and a passage from his translation of Pindar to a group of educated women. They found it nonsensical, even though Cowley’s version was meant to improve on the “madness” of a direct translation. The author then read his own literal translation from the Greek, which impressed the listeners with its clarity and grandeur, reminding them of the Bible’s prophetic books. He argues that the confusing language used by some poets is not the result of genuine imagination, but rather an artificial attempt to surprise by combining incompatible ideas. For example, making hills “reflect the image of a voice” is an odd, forced image. The author concludes that such language doesn’t come from a deep connection to the subject but from cleverness and wit, which distracts from true poetic passion. Therefore, he concludes that good sense and an understanding of language, rather than strict theories about how people speak, should guide poetic style.

If you are looking forward to prepare for UGC NET/JRF, you may find this article useful.

Here is a detailed list of topics you need to cover for your NET preparation.

©2024. Md. Rustam Ansari [profrustamansari@gmail.com]