Samuel Taylor Coleridge



Biographia Literaria


Chapter XIV.


Occasion of the Lyrical Ballads, and the objects originally proposed – Preface to the second edition – The ensuing controversy, its causes and acrimony – Philosophic definitions of a poem and poetry with scholia.


DURING the first year that Mr. Wordsworth and I were neighbours, our conversations turned frequently on the two cardinal points of poetry, the power of exciting the sympathy of the reader by a faithful adherence to the truth of nature, and the power of giving the interest of novelty by the modifying colours of imagination. The sudden charm, which accidents of light and shade, which moon-light or sun-set diffused over a known and familiar landscape, appeared to represent the practicability of combining both. These are the poetry of nature. The thought suggested itself (to which of us I do not recollect) that a series of poems might be composed of two sorts. In the one, the incidents and agents were to be, in part at least, supernatu[2]ral; and the excellence aimed at was to consist in the interesting of the affections by the dramatic truth of such emotions, as would naturally accompany such situations, supposing them real. And real in this sense they have been to every human being who, from whatever source of delusion, has at any time believed himself under supernatural agency. For the second class, subjects were to be chosen from ordinary life; the characters and incidents were to be such, as will be found in every village and its vicinity, where there is a meditative and feeling mind to seek after them, or to notice them, when they present themselves.

In this idea originated the plan of the "Lyrical Ballads;" in which it was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic; yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. Mr. Wordsworth, on the other hand, was to propose to himself as his object, to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind's attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us; an inexhaustible treasure, but for which in consequence of [3] the film of familiarity and selfish solicitude, we have eyes, yet see not, ears that hear not, and hearts that neither feel nor understand.

With this view I wrote the "Ancient Mariner", and was preparing among other poems, the "Dark Ladie", and the "Christobel", in which I should have more nearly realized my ideal, than I had done in my first attempt. But Mr. Wordsworth's industry had proved so much more successful, and the number of his poems so much greater, that my compositions, instead of forming a balance, appeared rather an interpolation of heterogeneous matter. Mr. Wordsworth added two or three poems written in his own character, in the impassioned, lofty, and sustained diction, which is characteristic of his genius. In this form the "Lyrical Ballads" were published; and were presented by him, as an experiment, whether subjects, which from their nature rejected the usual ornaments and extra-colloquial style of poems in general, might not be so managed in the language of ordinary life as to produce the pleasurable interest, which it is the peculiar business of poetry to impart. To the second edition he added a preface of considerable length; in which notwithstanding some passages of apparently a contrary import, he was understood to contend for the extension of this style to poetry of all kinds, and to reject as vicious and indefensible all phrases and forms of style that [4] were not included in what he (unfortunately, I think, adopting an equivocal expression) called the language of real life. From this preface, prefixed to poems in which it was impossible to deny the presence of original genius, however mistaken its direction might be deemed, arose the whole long continued controversy. For from the conjunction of perceived power with supposed heresy I explain the inveteracy and in some instances, I grieve to say, the acrimonious passions, with which the controversy has been conducted by the assailants.

Had Mr. Wordsworth's poems been the silly, the childish things, which they were for a long time described as being; had they been really distinguished from the compositions of other poets merely by meanness of language and inanity of thought; had they indeed contained nothing more than what is found in the parodies and pretended imitations of them; they must have sunk at once, a dead weight, into the slough of oblivion, and have dragged the preface along with them. But year after year increased the number of Mr. Wordsworth's admirers. They were found too not in the lower classes of the reading public, but chiefly among young men of strong sensibility and meditative minds; and their admiration (inflamed perhaps in some degree by opposition) was distinguished by its intensity, I might almost say, by its religious fervour. These facts, and the intellec[5]tual energy of the author, which was more or less consciously felt, where it was outwardly and even boisterously denied, meeting with sentiments of aversion to his opinions, and of alarm at their consequences, produced an eddy of criticism, which would of itself have borne up the poems by the violence with which it whirled them round and round. With many parts of this preface in the sense attributed to them and which the words undoubtedly seem to authorise, I never concurred; but on the contrary objected to them as erroneous in principle, and as contradictory (in appearance at least) both to other parts of the same preface, and to the author's own practice in the greater number of the poems themselves. Mr. Wordsworth in his recent collection has, I find, degraded this prefatory disquisition to the end of his second volume, to be read or not at the reader's choice. But he has not, as far as I can discover, announced any change in his poetic creed. <At> all events, considering it as the source of a controversy, in which I have been honored more than I deserve by the frequent conjunction of my name with his, I think it expedient to declare once for all, in what points I coincide with the opinions, and in what points I altogether differ. But in order to render myself intelligible I must previously, in as few words as possible, explain my views, first, of a POEM; and secondly, of POETRY itself, in kind, and in essence.

[6] The office of philosophical disquisition consists in just distinction; while it is the privilege of the philosopher to preserve himself constantly aware, that distinction is not division. In order to obtain adequate notions of any truth, we must intellectually separate its distinguishable parts; and this is the technical process of philosophy. But having so done, we must then restore them in our conceptions to the unity, in which they actually co-exist; and this is the result of philosophy. A poem contains the same elements as a prose composition; the difference therefore must consist in a different combination of them, in consequence of a different object proposed. According to the difference of the object will be the difference of the combination. It is possible, that the object may be merely to facilitate the recollection of any given facts or observations by artificial arrangement; and the composition will be a poem, merely because it is distinguished from prose by metre, or by rhyme, or by both conjointly. In this, the lowest sense, a man might attribute the name of a poem to the well known enumeration of the days in the several months;

"Thirty days hath September,
 April, June, and November, &c."

and others of the same class and purpose. And as a particular pleasure is found in anti[7]cipating the recurrence of sounds and quantities, all compositions that have this charm superadded, whatever be their contents, may be entitled poems.

So much for the superficial form. A difference of object and contents supplies an additional ground of distinction. The immediate purpose may be the communication of truths; either of truth absolute and demonstrable, as in works of science; or of facts experienced and recorded, as in history. Pleasure, and that of the highest and most permanent kind, may result from the attainment of the end; but it is not itself the immediate end. In other works the communication of pleasure may be the immediate purpose; and though truth, either moral or intellectual, ought to be the ultimate end, yet this will distinguish the character of the author, not the class to which the work belongs. Blest indeed is that state of society, in which the immediate purpose would be baffled by the perversion of the proper ultimate end; in which no charm of diction or imagery could exempt the Bathyllus even of an Anacreon, or the Alexis of Virgil, from disgust and aversion!

But the communication of pleasure may be the immediate object of a work not metrically composed; and that object may have been in a high degree attained, as in novels and roman[8]ces. Would then the mere superaddition of metre, with or without rhyme, entitle these to the name of poems? The answer is, that nothing can permanently please, which does not contain in itself the reason why it is so, and not otherwise. If metre be superadded, all other parts must be made consonant with it. They must be such, as to justify the perpetual and distinct attention to each part, which an exact correspondent recurrence of accent and sound are calculated to excite. The final definition then, so deduced, may be thus worded. A poem is that species of composition, which is opposed to works of science, by proposing for its immediate object pleasure, not truth; and from all other species (having this object in common with it) it is discriminated by proposing to itself such delight from the whole as is compatible with a distinct gratification from each component part.

Controversy is not seldom excited in consequence of the disputants attaching each a different meaning to the same word; and in few instances has this been more striking, than in disputes concerning the present subject. If a man chooses to call every composition a poem, which is rhyme, or measure, or both, I must leave his opinion uncontroverted. The distinction is at least competent to characterize the writer's intention. If it were subjoined, [9] that the whole is likewise entertaining or affecting, as a tale, or as a series of interesting reflections, I of course admit this as another fit ingredient of a poem, and an additional merit. But if the definition sought for be that of a legitimate poem, I answer, it must be one, the parts of which mutually support and explain each other; all in their proportion harmonizing with, and supporting the purpose and known influences of metrical arrangement. The philosophic critics of all ages coincide with the ultimate judgement of all countries, in equally denying the praises of a just poem, on the one hand, to a series of striking lines or distichs, each of which, absorbing the whole attention of the reader to itself disjoins it from its context, and makes it a separate whole, instead of a harmonizing part; and on the other hand, to an unsustained composition, from which the reader collects rapidly the general result unattracted by the component parts. The reader should be carried forward, not merely or chiefly by the mechanical impulse of curiosity, or by a restless desire to arrive at the final solution; but by the pleasureable activity of mind excited by the attractions of the journey itself. Like the motion of a serpent, which the Egyptians made the emblem of intellectual power; or like the path of sound through the air; at every step he pauses and half recedes, and [10] from the retrogressive movement collects the force which again carries him onward. Precipitandus est liber spiritus, says Petronius Arbiter most happily. The epithet, liber, here balances the preceding verb; and it is not easy to conceive more meaning condensed in fewer words.

But if this should be admitted as a satisfactory character of a poem, we have still to seek for a definition of poetry. The writings of PLATO, and Bishop TAYLOR, and the Theoria Sacra of BURNET, furnish undeniable proofs that poetry of the highest kind may exist without metre, and even without the contradistringuishing objects of a poem. The first chapter of Isaiah (indeed a very large proportion of the whole book) is poetry in the most emphatic sense; yet it would be not less irrational than strange to assert, that pleasure, and not truth was the immediate object of the prophet. In short, whatever specific import we attach to the word, poetry, there will be found involved in it, as a necessary consequence, that a poem of any length neither can be, or ought to be, all poetry. Yet if an harmonious whole is to be produced, the remaining parts must be preserved in keeping with the poetry; and this can be no otherwise effected than by such a studied selection and artificial arrangement, as will partake of one, though not [11] a peculiar property of poetry. And this again can be no other than the property of exciting a more continuous and equal attention, than the language of prose aims at, whether colloquial or written.

My own conclusions on the nature of poetry, in the strictest use of the word, have been in part anticipated in the preceding disquisition on the fancy and imagination. What is poetry? is so nearly the same question with, what is a poet? that he answer to the one is involved in the solution of the other. For it is a distinction resulting from the poetic genius itself, which sustains and modifies the images, thoughts, and emotions of the poet's own mind. The poet, described in ideal perfection, brings the whole soul of man into activity, with the subordination of its faculties to each other according to their relative worth and dignity. He diffuses a tone and spirit of unity, that blends, and (as it were) fuses, each into each, by that synthetic and magical power, to which we have exclusively appropriated the name of imagination. This power, first put in action by the will and understanding, and retained under their irremissive, though gentle and unnoticed, controul (laxis effertur habenis) reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or discordant qualities: of sameness, with difference; of the general with the con[12]crete; the idea with the image; the individual, with the representative; the sense of novelty and freshness with old and familiar objects; a more than usual state of emotion with more than usual order; judgement ever awake and steady self-possession with enthusiasm and feeling profound or vehement; and while it blends and harmonizes the natural and the artificial, still subordinates art to nature; the manner to the matter; and our admiration of the poet to our sympathy with the poetry. "Doubtless", as Sir John Davies observes of the soul (and his words may with slight alteration be applied, and even more appropriately, to the poetic IMAGINATION.)

"Doubtless this could not be, but that she turns
 Bodies to spirit by sublimation strange,
 As fire converts to fire the things it burns,
 As we our food into our nature change.

 From their gross matter she abstracts their forms,
 And draws a kind of quintessence from things;
 Which to her proper nature she transforms
 To bear them light, on her celestial wings.

 Thus does she, when from individual states
 She doth abstract the universal kinds;
 Which then re-clothed in divers names and fates
 Steal access through our senses to our minds."

Finally, GOOD SENSE is the BODY of poetic genius, FANCY its DRAPERY, MOTION its LIFE, and IMAGINATION the SOUL that is every where, and in each; and forms all into one graceful and intelligent whole.





Erstdruck und Druckvorlage

S. T. Coleridge: Biographia Literaria; or Biographical Sketches of My Literary Life and Opinions. Vol. II. London: R. Fenner 1817, S. 1-12.

Die Textwiedergabe erfolgt nach dem ersten Druck (Editionsrichtlinien). Ein Druckfehler wurde korrigiert (S. 5).



Kommentierte und kritische Ausgaben




Abrams, M. H.: Spiegel und Lampe. Romantische Theorie und die Tradition der Kritik. München 1978 (= Theorie und Geschichte der Literatur und der schönen Künste, 42).

Barfoot, C. C. (Hrsg.): "A natural delineation of human passions". The Historic Moment of Lyrical Ballads. Amsterdam 2004 (= DQR Studies in Literature, 34).

Brandmeyer, Rudolf: Poetiken der Lyrik: Von der Normpoetik zur Autorenpoetik. In: Handbuch Lyrik. Theorie, Analyse, Geschichte. Hrsg. von Dieter Lamping. Stuttgart u.a. 2011, S. 1-14.

Brown, Marshall (Hrsg.): Romanticism. Cambridge u.a. 2000 (= The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Bd. 5).

Burwick, Frederick (Hrsg.): Coleridge's Biographia Literaria. Text and Meaning. Columbus 1989.

Burwick, Frederick (Hrsg.): The Oxford Handbook of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Oxford u.a. 2009.

Burwick, Frederick: Romanticism: Keywords. Malden, MA u.a. 2015.

Chandler, James u.a. (Hrsg.): The Cambridge Companion to British Romantic Poetry. Cambridge 2008.

Class, Monika: Coleridge and Kantian Ideas in England, 1796-1817. Coleridge's Responses to German Philosophy. London u.a. 2012.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: Biographia Literaria; or Biographical Sketches of My Literary Life and Opinions. Vol. I. London: R. Fenner 1817.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: Biographia Literaria; or Biographical Sketches of My Literary Life and Opinions. Vol. II. London: R. Fenner 1817.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: Coleridge's Writings. Hrsg. von John Beer u.a. 5 Bde. Basingstoke: Macmillan u.a. 1990-2003.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor: Coleridge's Responses. Selected Writings on Literary Criticism, the Bible, and Nature. Hrsg. von John Beer u.a. 3 Bde. London u.a.: Continuum 2007-2008.

Franklin, Caroline (Hrsg.): British Romantic Poets. 6 Bde. London u.a. 1998 (= The Wellesley Series IV).

Hönnighausen, Lothar: Grundprobleme der englischen Literaturtheorie des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Darmstadt 1977 (= Erträge der Forschung, 71).

Hoffmeister, Gerhart: Deutsche und europäische Romantik. 2. Aufl. Stuttgart 1990 (= Sammlung Metzler, 170).

Jones, Ewan J.: Coleridge and the Philosophy of Poetic Form. Cambridge 2014 (= Cambridge Studies in Romanticism, 106).

Lobsien, Eckhard: Zeit der Imagination. Das Imaginäre (in) der englischen Romantik. Heidelberg 2008 (= Neues Forum für allgemeine und vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft, 38).

Lobsien, Eckhard: Englische Poetik 1650 bis 1950. Feldstruktur und Transformation. Würzburg 2016.

Magnuson, Paul: The Lake School. Wordsworth and Coleridge. In: The Cambridge Companion to English Literature 1740 – 1830. Hrsg. von Thomas Keymer u.a. Cambridge, England 2004, S. 227-243.

Mahoney, Charles (Hrsg.): A Companion to Romantic Poetry. Oxford u.a. 2011.

Modiano, Raimonda: Wordsworth's Theory of Poetry. In: The Oxford Handbook of William Wordsworth. Hrsg. von Richard Gravil u.a. Oxford 2015, S. 482-498.

Natarajan, Uttara (Hrsg.): The Romantic Poets. A Guide to Criticism. Malden, Mass. u.a. 2007 (= Blackwell Guides to Criticism).

O'Neill, Michael (Hrsg.): The Cambridge History of English Poetry. Cambridge u.a. 2010.

Peter, Klaus: Der spekulative Anspruch. Die deutsche Romantik im Unterschied zur französischen und englischen. In: Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts 1985, S. 101-150.

Reiman, Donald H. (Hrsg.): The Romantics Reviewed. Contemporary Reviews of British Romantic Writers. 9 Bde. New York 1972.

Rudnick, Hans-Heinrich (Hrsg.): Englische Literaturtheorie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Texte von Blake bis Yeats. Stuttgart 1979 (= Universal-Bibliothek, 9947).

Schlutz, Alexander: Wordsworth and Coleridge on Imagination. In: The Oxford Handbook of William Wordsworth. Hrsg. von Richard Gravil u.a. Oxford 2015, S. 499-515.

Vigus, James u.a. (Hrsg.): Coleridge's Afterlives. Basingstoke 2008.

Worthen, John: The Cambridge Introduction to Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Cambridge 2010.

Wyrwa, Christiane: Gedichte über Dichtung bei Wordsworth und Keats. Freiburg (Breisgau) 1982 (= Hochschulsammlung Philosophie; Literaturwissenschaft, 9).

Zapf, Hubert: Kurze Geschichte der anglo-amerikanischen Literaturtheorie. 2. Aufl. München 1996 (= UTB, 1629).



Lyriktheorie » R. Brandmeyer