Mathew

Introduction

Matthew Arnold (1882 – 1888) was a poet-critic and one of the most significant writers of the late Victorian
period in England. He occupies a prominent place in the history of Literary Criticism. His essay “The Function of
Criticism at the Present Time” was published in his first collection of critical writings, “Essays in Criticism” in
1865. In his essay, Arnold states that criticism should be a ‘dissemination of ideas, an unprejudiced and
impartial effort to study and spread the best that is known and thought of in the world’. Arnold defines the
role of a critic as the one to view an object for what it really is, to bring best ideas to the masses, and to create
an atmosphere that fuels the literary genius of the future. He states that the role of criticism is to make itself
inherently valuable, and to rouse men from complacency to a state of achieving perfection. Arnold also likens
criticism to creativity, citing how the writing of criticism gives rise to creative joy that comes from original
writing. He argues that unlike Wordsworth’s opinion on criticism, it must be considered as a form of art for its
vital contributions the literary world and society in general. It is a form of exercising free creativity. He also
states that criticism paves the way for creativity. Arnold believes that criticism is a way to understand life and
the world, and can be linked to the satisfaction derived from creative writing.

Definition of criticism by Arnold

“The Function of Criticism in the Present Time is largely made of ideas that Arnold discusses in his Study of
Poetry. He defines criticism as “A disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and
thought of in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas.” The term ‘disinterest’ in the
view of Arnold refers to being an impartial and just reader. A critic needs to be free from two prejudices:
historical and personal. Historical prejudice is when the critic resorts to view through the lens of past and
neglects the present in the work. Personal prejudice refers to a personal liking that can cloud judgment.

Arnold also believes that for the production of great literary work, the ‘power of man’ and ‘power of the
moment’ (climate of great ideas) must come together. If one of them is absent, the work will not become
great. To illustrate this, he takes the example of Goethe and Byron. Both had great productive power, yet
Goethe’s work was more powerful because he had a rich cultural background. He also mentions how
Shakespeare was not a deep reader, which affected his work. But his fame and glory were a result of his age
and a climate of great ideas.

Three functions for the critic

By the definition of criticism provided by Arnold, the task of a critic is threefold.

The first task is the critic’s duty to learn, and for that he must “see things as they really are”. The second task is
to hand on this idea to others, to convert the world, to make “the best ideas prevail.” The third task requires
the critic to create a favourable atmosphere for the creative genius of the future, by promoting “a current of
ideas in the highest degree animating and nourishing to the creative power.” Without the prevalence of best
ideas, there will be a cultural anarchy.

Arnold also observes that to recognize the greatness of a literary work, one has to look beyond the social ideas
and influences that cast shadows and opinions. Further, he indicates that two powers must converge to create
a great piece of literature: the power of man and the power of moment. In the quest to be a critic, Arnold
believed that one must not confine himself to the literature if his own country, but should draw substantially
on foreign literature and ideas because the propagation of ideas should be an objective endeavor. Scott-James
says that Arnold places the critic “is the position of John the Baptist, preparing the ways for one whose shoe he
is not worthy to unloose”. Thus, Arnold has a high conception of the vocation of a critic.

Role of Criticism

Arnold suggests that the function of criticism at the present time is to make itself inherently valuable in itself.
Whether the value springs from bringing joy to the writer or from making sure that the best ideas reach
society are irrespective. In this regard, Arnold mirrors Aristotle’s view of poetry while he explains that the
highest function of human kind is exercising its creative power.
Criticism performs another important function as well. It rouses men out of their self-satisfaction and
complacency. By shaking complacency off, criticism makes their mind dwell upon what is excellent in itself, and
makes them contemplate the ideally perfect. Therefore, the critic must rise above practical considerations and
have ideal perfection as his aim, in order to make others rise to it as well.

Defense on Significance of Criticism

Arnold argues that a lot of literature from European nations has been used for the purpose of criticism. But
England has failed to produce and encourage significant amount of critical writing due to the attitudes of
writers towards criticism. He takes the example of Wordsworth to illustrate this further. Wordsworth believed
that critical writing was a waste of time for the author as well as the reader. He also states that great harm can
be done through critical writing, but little harm occurs through means of creative writing. But Arnold defends
these views by arguing that if a man has talent in one line of writing, he must not be forced to create original
writing under the pretext that critical writing is of no value. To quote,

“It is almost too much to expect a poor human nature, that a man capable of producing some effect in one line
of literature, should for the greater good of society, voluntarily doom himself to impotence and obscurity in
another.”

Arnold goes on to point out the paradox of Wordsworth’s beliefs on criticism as Wordsworth had indulged
himself in being a critic by writing against literary criticism.

Literary Criticism and Creativity

Arnold believed creative capacity to be more important than critical faculty.

However, his definition of criticism as “the endeavor, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy,
history, art, science, to see the object as in itself it really is” makes it a necessary prerequisite for valuable
creation. He asserts that creation of quality is not possible if people are not provided with a current of fresh
ideas. This is achieved through honest criticism. If the best ideas do not prevail, it gives rise to a cultural
anarchy. Only when the power of man and power of moment come together can a good piece of literature be
created.

Arnold also states that writing criticism may produce in its practitioner a sense of creative joy. He compares the
emotional state of writing criticism with the emotional state of creative writing. In this, he dispels the typical
censure that criticism serves no purpose.

Arnold observes that great writing emerges from great ideas, and they are manifested when these ideas reach
the masses. The critic performs the important task of identifying these ideas with disinterest and impart these
ideas to people. He implies that the period of great creativity and dormant creativity can be traced to lack of
objective criticism and public attention as much as to creators of great work. In this argument, Arnold
establishes literary criticism as an art form as high and significant as any form of creativity.

Further, Arnold argues that critical writing is an important activity of exercising free creativity. “It is undeniable,
also, that men may have the sense of exercising this free creative activity in other ways than in producing great
works of literature or art.” If some people were better equipped to write criticism, it would be frustrating to
insist they channel their talent only for creating original writing.

Finally, criticism is necessary because Arnold thinks that creative power works with certain materials, and for
the author these ideas, “the best ideas on every matter which literature touches, current at the time.”
However authors do not discover these ideas, rather they synthesize them into their work of art. Therefore, if
authors do not readily know these ideas, they have nothing to write about. Arnold talks about the power of
man and power of the moment, in this context. The author needs to live in a society where true ideas are
discussed and debated, where true thoughts are cherished and passed on, like in ancient Greece or
Renaissance England. Thus he advocates that good criticism propagates good literature.

Conclusion
Matthew Arnold is hailed as the first ‘modern critic’ and is also called a ‘critic’s critic’ for his contribution to the
meaningfulness of criticism in the realm of literature. In his work ‘The Function of Criticism at the Present
Time’ (1865), Arnold makes an effort to demonstrate that criticism in itself has several functions and should be
observed as an art form that is as high and important as any other creative art form. He offered an objective
method in the field of criticism, through comparison and analysis. His methods were met with disapproval
from his peers. However, Arnold’s method for literary criticism was widely accepted and went on to influence
the first sixty years of the 20thcentury. Arnold has a high conception of the vocation of a critic and the function
of criticism. His ideas are a result of the prevalence of cultural anarchy, leading him to take up the mission to
bring about cultural regeneration in the literary world through means of objective criticism. His critic is a critic
of life, society, religion culture, national character and all aesthetic activities.

————————————————————Champion of Objective Approach

Matthew Arnold (1882 – 1888) was a poet-critic and one of the most significant writers of the late Victorian
period in England. He occupies a prominent place in the history of Literary Criticism. His essay “The Function of
Criticism at the Present Time” was published in his first collection of critical writings, “Essays in Criticism” in
1865. He belongs to the Objective Approach that started in 1860s. He is hailed as the first ‘modern critic’ and is
also called a ‘critic’s critic’ for his contribution to the meaningfulness of criticism in the realm of literature. He
was the founder of the sociological school of criticism. Arnold defined the role of a criticism as “A disinterested
endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought of in the world, and thus to establish a
current of fresh and true ideas.” His Touchstone method offered scientific objectivity to literary criticism.

The Objective Approach

In the Objective Approach, the text or the artistic object is the only reality worth studying. Additionally, the
text or poem has an internal structure of references that has nothing to do with the author, audience or
universe. Arnold began as a romantic poet but changed in the middle of his career to become a critic of
romanticism. His shift also changed the interest from feelings to that of the ideas. Arnold’s view came to be
known through his work “The Function of Criticism at the present Time”.

In the Function of Criticism, Arnold states that criticism should be a dissemination of ideas, a disinterested
endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world. He implies that while
evaluating a work, the objectivity of a critic is more important than psychological, historical and social
background of the work.

Through his Touchstone method published in ‘The Study of Poetry’ (1880), Arnold introduced scientific
objectivity to critical evaluation. He provided comparison and analysis as the two primary tools of criticism. In
this, he employed short quotations from recognized poetic masterpieces as the benchmark to gauge the value
of other works. According to this method, Chaucer, Dryden, Pope, Shelly fall short due to their lack of high
seriousness. Shakespeare too falls short due to his emphasis on expression rather than concept. Arnold put
works by Homer, Sophocles, Dante, Milton and Wordsworth in the forefront, and ranked Wordsworth as first
for his “criticism of life”.

He laid great stress on ‘Disinterestedness’, which he considered to be the most important quality of criticism.
He also laid emphasis on knowledge as a tool for objective criticism. Arnold’s criticism method has faced
disapproval by some critics as lacking in logical and methodical aptitude. However, many critics agreed with
Arnold and the first sixty years of the 20thcentury in literary criticism were greatly influenced by Arnold’s work.

—————————————————————————————————————

Difficulties Faced by Critics

Matthew Arnold (1882 – 1888) was a poet-critic and one of the most significant writers of the late Victorian
period in England. He occupies a prominent place in the history of Literary Criticism. In his essay, Matthew
Arnold states that British critics face difficulties due to the culture being rooted in hegemonic values. Critics are
unable to transcend these values in order to see the object as it really is. He also says that society questions
the modern critics on their value in the contribution of literature as an art form. People claim that critics use
criticism as a means to protect their own ingrained opinion.

Hegemonic Values in Britain: Cultural Anarchy

Arnold states that people are particularly indisposed even to comprehend that without this free disinterested
treatment of things, truth and the highest culture are out of the questions. With the lack of these, great
literary works are not created. Arnold observes that to recognize the greatness of a literary work, one has to
look beyond the social ideas and influences that cast shadows and opinions. In the quest to be a critic, Arnold
believed that one must not confine himself to the literature if his own country, but should draw substantially
on foreign literature and ideas because the propagation of ideas should be an objective endeavor. The critic is
required to create a favourable atmosphere for the creative genius of the future, by promoting “a current of
ideas in the highest degree animating and nourishing to the creative power.” Without the prevalence of best
ideas, there will be a cultural anarchy.

Power of Man and Power of Moment

Arnold also believes that for the production of great literary work, the ‘power of man’ and ‘power of the
moment’ (climate of great ideas) must come together. If one of them is absent, the work will not become
great. To illustrate this, he takes the example of Goethe and Byron. Both had great productive power, yet
Goethe’s work was more powerful because he had a rich cultural background. He also mentions how
Shakespeare was not a deep reader, which affected his work. But his fame and glory were a result of his age
and a climate of great ideas.

Writers’ attitudes towards Criticism

Arnold argues that a lot of literature from European nations has been used for the purpose of criticism. But
England has failed to produce and encourage significant amount of critical writing due to the attitudes of
writers towards criticism. He takes the example of Wordsworth to illustrate this further. Wordsworth believed
that critical writing was a waste of time for the author as well as the reader. He also states that great harm can
be done through critical writing, but little harm occurs through means of creative writing. But Arnold defends
these views by arguing that if a man has talent in one line of writing, he must not be forced to create original
writing under the pretext that critical writing is of no value. To quote,

“It is almost too much to expect a poor human nature, that a man capable of producing some effect in one line
of literature, should for the greater good of society, voluntarily doom himself to impotence and obscurity in
another.”

Arnold goes on to point out the paradox of Wordsworth’s beliefs on criticism as Wordsworth had indulged
himself in being a critic by writing against literary criticism. Scott-James says that Arnold places the critic “is the
position of John the Baptist, preparing the ways for one whose shoe he is not worthy to unloose”. Thus, Arnold
has a high conception of the vocation of a critic.

—————————————————————————————————————

Link Between Literary Criticism and Creativity

Arnold believed creative capacity to be more important than critical faculty.

However, his definition of criticism as “the endeavor, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy,
history, art, science, to see the object as in itself it really is” makes it a necessary prerequisite for valuable
creation. He asserts that creation of quality is not possible if people are not provided with a current of fresh
ideas. This is achieved through honest criticism. If the best ideas do not prevail, it gives rise to a cultural
anarchy. Only when the power of man and power of moment come together can a good piece of literature be
created.
Arnold also states that writing criticism may produce in its practitioner a sense of creative joy. He compares the
emotional state of writing criticism with the emotional state of creative writing. In this, he dispels the typical
censure that criticism serves no purpose.

Arnold observes that great writing emerges from great ideas, and they are manifested when these ideas reach
the masses. The critic performs the important task of identifying these ideas with disinterest and impart these
ideas to people. He implies that the period of great creativity and dormant creativity can be traced to lack of
objective criticism and public attention as much as to creators of great work. In this argument, Arnold
establishes literary criticism as an art form as high and significant as any form of creativity.

Further, Arnold argues that critical writing is an important activity of exercising free creativity. “It is undeniable,
also, that men may have the sense of exercising this free creative activity in other ways than in producing great
works of literature or art.” If some people were better equipped to write criticism, it would be frustrating to
insist they channel their talent only for creating original writing.

Finally, criticism is necessary because Arnold thinks that creative power works with certain materials, and for
the author these ideas, “the best ideas on every matter which literature touches, current at the time.”
However authors do not discover these ideas, rather they synthesize them into their work of art. Therefore, if
authors do not readily know these ideas, they have nothing to write about. Arnold talks about the power of
man and power of the moment, in this context. The author needs to live in a society where true ideas are
discussed and debated, where true thoughts are cherished and passed on, like in ancient Greece or
Renaissance England. Thus he advocates that good criticism propagates good literature.

2nd part

➢ Matthew Arnold begins the essay by recalling the fact that there was a great need for
and importance of criticism in English Literature. However the general opinion was
that the creative effort of the human spirit is far superior to the critical effort. Even
Wordsworth, whom Arnold admired, spoke disparagingly of criticism and said that
the critic could not have a sensitivity fine enough to appreciate the finer influences of
genuine poetry. According to Wordsworth, the time spent on writing a critique was
better spent on original compositions. It is because a false or malicious critique would
do much harm but an original composition however dull it might be, would do no
harm.
➢ Arnold finds this argument unsustainable. According to him, if a person is genuinely
interested in criticism then he shall not spend time in the field of creative effort for
which he has no aptitude. He agrees to the view that critical activity may be a lower
faculty than creative activity. He also concurs that malicious criticism is harmful. But
he does not agree that it is better to give time to inferior creative work than to
criticism. He substantiates his point y citing some examples. For example he points
out that he cannot imagine that D. Johnson continuing writing plays like, Irene,
instead of writhing Lives of the Poets or Wordsworth producing inferior poems such
as his Ecclesiastical Sonnets instead of writing the admirable Preface to Lyrical
Ballads. Arnold expresses his satisfaction that Goethe, one of the greatest poets, wrote
a good deal of criticism. Hence one may us his creative faculty in producing great
critical work and not just in the creation of great works of literature and art.
➢ However, the exercise of creative faculty for the production of great works of art and
literature is not possible in all epochs and all times. Elaborating on this, Arnold says
that the creative artist works with certain elements and certain materials. In case of
literature this material is in form of ideas. If there is a lack in this material, then
creative work is not possible. There may be a period when there is lack of this current
of fresh and new ideas. However these ideas are not discovered by the literary artists
but it is the business of the philosopher. The literary artist’s work is synthesis and
exposition. “The rand work of literary genius is a work of synthesis and exposition,
not of analysis and discovery.” He is inspired by a certain intellectual and spiritual
atmosphere by a certain order of ideas and deals with these divinely and presents them
in the most effective and attractive combinations. From these observations, Arnold
makes a very important statement. He says that for the creation of a great piece of
literature, two factors must combine—the power of the man and the power of the
moment.
➢ Creative activity is possible only when there is a fresh current of ideas and a suitable intellectual environment. It is
the function of criticism to create such an atmosphereand such a current of ideas. The critic in all branches of
knowledge—theology,philosophy, history, art, science—should see the object as it is in itself, or as it really
is. A critic by acquiring a wide knowledge, not merely of literature, but also of other subjects can create an
intellectual environment in which a creative artist can flourish. Criticism can establish a current of ideas and out of
these new ideas creative epochs would emerge. In Arnold’s opinion, criticism can prepare the ground for the effort of
creativity to be successful.
➢ Arnold is of the opinion that a poet needs to have great knowledge of the world and of human life if he has to
produce a work of significance and this requires a great deal of critical effort. Although it is possible to acquire these
knowledge from books, Arnold suggests that it can be best acquired from the current of the ideas as they exist in the
intellectual atmosphere. As an example, Arnold points out the outburst of activity in England during Shakespeare’s
time and in Greece during Pindar’s time. In both these ages, the society was saturated with fresh and new ideas and
this intellectual atmosphere was congenial for the production of great creative works. This atmosphere
can be cultivated by men of culture and free thought. And it was because of the
existence of such men, that Goethe’s works have so enduring qualities whereas
Byron’s does not, although both had immense productive power. In other words,
Goethe’s productive power was nourished by great critical effort.
➢ Arnold points out that in England, the burst of creative activity in literature during the
first quarter of the 19th century was somewhat premature. It had proceeded without
proper data or material to work with. There was no national growth and stir of
intellect, nor there was the culture and force of learning and criticism as there had
been in the Germany of Goethe. There was in the first quarter of the 19th century
England, a dearth of the current of fresh ideas which are necessary for a successful
creative effort. As a result, English poetry of this period had plenty of energy and
plenty of creative force but did not have enough knowledge to reinforce it. In other
words, it lacked the critical effort. There was no current of the best ideas, the very
material of poetry. It is what, according to Arnold, “makes Byron so empty of matter,
Shelley so incoherent, Wordsworth even, profound as he is, yet so wanting in
completeness and variety.” Hence due to the dearth of a current of fresh ideas, there is
a lack of thorough interpretation of life in the poetry of this period.
➢ Arnold says that some people might point out that there was plenty of stir and activity
in the sphere of intellect in the early 19th century brought about by the French
Revolution. But Arnold points out that the French Revolution took on a political and
practical character and did not for long remain a purely intellectual movement. The
Renaissance and Reformation were purely intellectual and spiritual movements and
thus were productive of the current of great ideas which could benefit the literature
created in that period. No such benefits could come out of the French Revolution for
this was a movement of political and practical nature. The result of the Revolution in
France was to create an epoch of concentration in England. England withdrew into
herself, away from any foreign ideas, fearing that a similar revolution might come
about in England.
➢ Arnold then goes on to speak about the essential qualities of criticism. Criticism, says
Arnold, should follow the path of disinterestedness. Only then it would prove to be
useful. Criticism must be a free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches. It
should reject any ulterior or political or practical considerations which might make it
biased. Real criticism, Arnold says, is the “free play of the mind on all subjects in
order to know the best that is known and thought in this world, without any political
considerations.” Criticism should know what is best in the thought and knowledge in
the world and make it known to others and in this way, create a current of new and
fresh ideas and this should be done with inflexible honesty and ability.
➢ Talking about the contemporary scenario, Arnold finds that the disinterested search
for knowledge and the bringing about a current of ideas was lacking in the
contemporary criticism. Practical considerations weighed heavily and guided the
criticism. Arnold says-“Our organs of criticism are organs of men and parties having
practical ends to serve, and with them those practical ends are the first thing and the
play of mind second: so much play of mind as is compatible with the prosecution of
this practical end is all that is wanted.” However the pitiable state of English criticism
does not make Arnold lose his hope. He finds it reassuring that an era of penance
following the bloody revolution had made England more receptive to ideas from
outside. The epoch of concentration was giving way to an epoch of expansion. Further
the advancement in science and technology had given the Englishmen more leisure
time for the free play of the mind without taking into account the practical
considerations.
➢ According to Arnold, criticism in England had not kept itself to the purely intellectual
field because its self satisfaction and complacency is retarding and vulgarising. Real
criticism would have the ability to lead away from self-satisfaction towards perfection
by making his mind dwell upon what is excellent in itself. As instances of elfsatisfaction, which would prove very
harmful for the people and nation, Arnold
quotes the speeches of two members of Parliament, Adderley and Roebuck. Arnold
disapproves strongly of such complacency because while these speakers made hollow
and baseless claims for superiority, reports were there in the newspapers regarding
child murders caused due to extreme poverty. Arnold is of the opinion that the critics
should have brought together the radically contrasting aspects of the contemporary
times to shake man out of their complacency. Only then can the human spirit take a
step forward towards perfection. Criticism thus had a great function—to bring the best
ideas and knowledge of the world to everybody and take man towards perfection by
making him realise the absolutely beautiful and perfect and thus conscious of his own
imperfections. Criticism should therefore enlarge the horizon of man both mentally
and spiritually.
➢ Defining criticism as “a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is
known and thought in this world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true
ideas”, Arnold then goes on to enumerate the qualities and duties of an ideal critic.
Arnold says that the duty of the critic is (a) to learn and understand, (b) to hand on the
ideas to others to convert the world, and (c) to prepare suitable atmosphere for further
creative genius and writing. In the broadest term, the function of Arnold’s critic is to
promote ‘culture’, more specifically that part of culture which depends upon
knowledge of letters. Thus, essentially, the critic must propagate noble ideas, he must
repeatedly stress them, for only then he can make them prevail.
➢ According to Arnold, the critic should not only be a scholar, a well-read man, a
propagandist, a culturist, but also should be impartial, detached and disinterested.
Criticism should keep himself free from personal, ulterior, political, economic
considerations. The critic’s judgement should never be swayed by any kind of
prejudices. It must shun provincialism which may take the forms of excess, ignorance
or pathos, and endeavour to be “in the contact with the main stream of human life.”
The critic must be disinterested in the sense that he should pursue only the ends of
cultural perfection, and should remain uninfluenced by the coarser appeals of the
Philistine.
Matthew Arnold as a Literary Critic—A Critical Estimate.
Matthew Arnold, the greatest of the Victorian critics, has been both eulogised and
condemned by scholars. T.S. Eliot criticised him and called him a propagandist, a salesman, a
clever advertiser, rather than a great critic. He finds him lacking in the power of connected
reasoning at any length and says that “his flights are short flights or circular flights.” F.R.
Leavis accuses him of “high pamphleteering”. Prof. Garrod, who otherwise, is an admirer of
Arnold, feels that Arnold became a critic only by accident and names him “the vendor of
Frenchified disinterestedness.”
Arnold’s limitations as a critic can be summarised as following—
1. He is incapable of sustained reasoning and often contradicts himself. Thus first he
lays down the tests of total impression for judging the worth of a poet, but soon after
contradicts himself and prescribes the well known, Touchstone Method.
2. There is a certain want of logic and method in Arnold’s criticism. He is not a
scientific critic and is often vague in stating his points.
3. He frowns upon mere literary criticism. He mixes literary criticism with socio-ethical
considerations and regards it as an instrument of culture.
4. To some extent Arnold does seem to be a propagandist. As Wimsatt and Brooks point
out, “very simply, very characteristically, and repetitiously, Arnold spent his career in
hammering the thesis that poetry is a criticism of life. All his practical criticism is but
an illusion of this view.”
5. Arnold’s criticism lacks in originality. Practically all of his critical concepts are
borrowed. In the emphasis on ‘action’ and ‘high seriousness’, he merely echoes
Aristotle; his concept of ‘grand style’ is exactly the same thing as ‘the sublime’, of
Longinus and his biographical method is the method of the French Saint-Beauve. As
George Watson says, “he plagiarises too heavily.”
6. Arnold might be earned but his learning is neither exact nor precise. He does not
collect his data painstakingly and his illustrations of touchstone method are all
misquotations. Similarly, his biographical data are often inaccurate.
7. One of the fallacies in Arnold’s criticism is his self contradiction. For instance,
Arnold is in favour of biographical criticism and is also conscious of the importance
of “the moment” and yet he is against the historical method of criticism.
8. Arnold advocates ‘disinterestedness’, but ties the critic to certain socio-ethical
interests. He would like him to rise above ‘personal’ and ‘practical’ interests, but he
wants him to establish a current of great and noble ideas and thus promote culture.
But ideally ‘disinterestedness’ means that the critic should have no interests except
aesthetic appreciation.
9. Arnold speaks of moral effects of poetry, of its ‘high seriousness’, but never of its
‘aesthetic pleasure’ which a poet must impart, and which is the true test of its
excellence. His standards of judgement are not literary.
10. Arnold’s literary criticism is vitiated by his moral, classical and continental
prejudices. He is sympathetic only to the classical, he rates the continental poets
higher than the great English poets, and the moral test which he applies often makes
him neglect the literary qualities of a poet.
Matthew Arnold’s merits as a literary critic.
Arnold’s faults are glaring, but more important are his merits and achievements. He is the
most imposing figure in Victorian criticism. Scott-James observes, “For half a century,
Arnold’s position in this country was comparable with that of the venerable Greek, in respect
of the wide influence he exercised, the mark he impressed upon criticism, and the blind faith
with which he was trusted by his votaries.” Another critic praises him because his criticism is
more “compellingly alive”, more thought provoking than that of any other critic of his age.
Herbert Paul goes to the extent of saying that Arnold did not merely criticise books, he taught
others to criticise books.
Judged historically, Arnold rendered a great service to criticism. He rescued it from the
disorganised state in which it had fallen by stressing the need of system in critical judgement.
He also tried to free criticism from intrusion of personal, religious and political
considerations in the judgement of authors and works. In certain respects, as shown by Scott-
James, Arnold is superior to Aristotle. Aristotle knew none but the classics of Greece, the
only literary models available to him, whilst Arnold, having the literature of many nations
and ages before him, was limited only, of his own choice, to, “the best that is known and
thought in the world.” further, Arnold repudiated the idea that the critic should be an
“abstract lawgiver”. Above all, “Aristotle shows us the critic in relation to art. Arnold shows
us the critic in relation to the public. Aristotle dissects a work of art, Arnold dissects a critic.”
The one gives us the principles which govern the making of a poem: the other, the principles
by which the best poems should be selected and made known. Aristotle’s critic owes
allegiance to the Artist, but Arnold’s critic has a duty to society.
To conclude, in the words of Saintsbury, “His services, therefore, to English Criticism,
whether as a “receptist” or as an actual craftsman cannot possibly be overestimated. In the
first respect he was, if not the absolute reformer, the leader in reform, of the slovenly and
disorganised condition into which Romantic criticism had fallen. In the second, the things
which he had not, as well as those which he had, combined to give him a place among the
very first. He had not the sublime and ever new-inspired inconsistency of Dryden. He had not
the robustness of Johnson, the supreme critical “reason” of Coleridge; scarcely the exquisite,
fitful, appreciation of Lamb, or the full blooded and passionate appreciation of Hazlitt. But he
had an exacter knowledge than Dryden; the fitness of his judgement seems finer beside
Johnson’s bluntness; he could not wool-gather like Coleridge; his range was far wider than
Lamb’s; his scholarship and his delicacy alike was superior to those of Hazlitt.”

Biographia lit
Explication of Biographia Literaria- Chapter 14- Part-1
Introduction
In chapter fourteen of Biographia Literaria, Coleridge discusses the nature of
poetry and its function in detail; however, philosophically. He poses a number of questions
regarding the nature and function of poetry and then answers them. Coleridge’s view of
poetry has been elaborated in this chapter.
Coleridge also analyses the differences between poetry and prose. He examines
the ways in which poetry differs from other kinds of artistic activity, and the role and
significance of nature as an essential significant part of a legitimate poem. He is the first
poet and a critic to pronounce that every work of art is an organic whole.
The Essay
While Wordsworth and Coleridge lived as neighbours, they often talked about two
fundamental points of poetry namely, the power of exciting the sympathy of the readers
by a faithful adherence to the truth of nature, and creating interest in reading poetry by
using colours of imagination. It occurred to them that a series of poems might be
composed and these compositions could be discussed under these two criteria.
The emotions arising from incidents that have the influence of the supernatural in
the poems would naturally call for supposing them to be real. For the poems that excite
the sympathy of the readers, the characters and incidents depicted would be taken from
every village and its vicinity. The meditative and reclusive mind of the poet would search
for the characters and the incidents or notice them when they presented themselves.
The plan of the Lyrical Ballads originated from this pattern of thinking. It was
decided that Coleridge’s endeavours would be directed to persons and characters that
are supernatural, or at least romantic. He was supposed to treat his subject in such a way
as to elicit from his readers that it is “willing suspension of disbelief” for the moment, which
constitutes poetic truth.
Wordsworth, on the other hand was to give the chance of novelty to things of the
everyday, and 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 the readers.
Coleridge composed “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” and a few other poems for
the Lyrical Ballads. Wordsworth’s contribution to the collection of poems far exceeded
Coleridge’s efforts. To the second edition of the Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth added a
Preface of considerable length, in which he stated that “the language of real life” was the
only suitable language for all kind of poetry, and he rejected the use of artificial language
and ornamentation, phrases and forms of style that were not part of the language of the
ordinary people. This statement of Wordsworth was controversial.
Critics pointed out the “meanness of language and inanity of thought” in
Wordsworth’s poems. If the language used in the poems had been so bad, the poems
would have been forgotten long ago and the Preface would have sunk into oblivion along
with them, but this did not happen. Coleridge did not agree with several parts of
Wordsworth’s Preface. He found the dictum of Wordsworth to be erroneous in principle
and contradictory because the author’s own practice was in opposition to what he
maintained in the poems he had composed for the Lyrical Ballads.
Coleridge’s Views on Prose and Poetry
A poem, according to Coleridge contains the same elements as a prose
composition. The difference therefore must consist in the different combinations of the words, in consequence
of a different object proposed. According to the difference of the
aim of the composition, the difference of the combination would be ascertained.
The object may be to facilitate the recollection of the given facts or observation by
artificial arrangement. Then the composition will be a poem merely because it is
distinguished from prose by meter, or by rhyme or by both together. The distinction of
form between prose and poetry is superficial. The difference of content can form an
additional ground of distinction.
The immediate end of a composition may be truth or pleasure. A poem is that
species of composition, which is opposed to science by proposing for its immediate
object, pleasure and not truth. A poem provides delight from the whole and not from each
component part.
A proper poem is one whose parts mutually support and explain each other. A
series of striking lines or distiches which make a separate whole instead of a harmonising
part cannot be called a poem. The reader should be carried forward, not merely or chiefly
by the mechanical impulse of curiosity or by the restless desire to arrive at the final
solution, but by the pleasurable activity of the mind excited by the journey itself.
Coleridge’s Definition of a Poem
Coleridge tries to bring out a clear distinction between prose and poetry and he
also gives his own definition of a poem. His attitude to meter is not clear as he is in a dual
state of mind. His language is hesitating and sometimes almost self-contradictory. A
poem, according to him uses the same medium as a prose composition, namely words.
So the difference between the two must lie in the different use of words in consequence
of their different objects. He quotes the following lines of a poem:
Thirty days hath September,
April, June and November….
The lines of the poem provide details of the days in the several months and the others of
the same class and purpose. As a particular pleasure is found in anticipating the
recurrence of sounds and qualities, all compositions that provide find this charm
superadded. Though the use of meter and rhyme in such poems facilitate memory, there
is nothing in the content of the poem which necessitates their use in it. The difference in
the objects of poetry and the works of science can be comprehended.
The immediate object of a work of science is to covey truth and the immediate
object of a poem is pleasure but a work of science may also give pleasure to the readers,
and the poem contains a profound truth. They may be called their ultimate objects. The
ideal condition would be where both of them fuse together into one. Meter should suit
the language and the content of the poem and be a super addition only for the sake of
ornament or memory. Pleasure may be the immediate object of a work not metrically
composed as in novels and romances.
A legitimate poem is one, in which the separate parts mutually support and explain
each other, and harmonise with the known influences of metrical arrangements. A series
of striking lines or distiches, which absorbing enough in themselves, making a separate
whole and not harmonising with the rest of the composition cannot be called a poem.
Secondly, an unsustained composition, from which the reader collects rapidly the
general result, which is not attracted by the component parts cannot be considered a
poem. In a long poem, all the parts cannot be equally gratifying.” Therefore, Coleridge
says, “a poem of any length neither can be, nor ought to be, all poetry.” Whatever specific
meaning or significance is attached to the word poetry, a poem of any length can neither
be, nor ought to be called poetry.
If a harmonious whole is to be produced, the remaining parts must be preserved
in keeping with the poetry. This can be achieved by an intentional selection and artificial
arrangement of words that would excite a more continuous and equal attention, which is
more effective than the language of prose. In order to know what poetry is, it is essential
to examine the qualities and functions of a poet.
Coleridge’s Definition of a Poet
The poet, in the ideal sense of the term, is one who brings the soul of man into
activity with the subordination of the faculties according to their relative worth and dignity.
He imparts a tone and spirit of unity that blends and fuses each faculty into the other by
the synthetic and magical power of imagination.
This power reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of the opposites or the
discordant qualities of sameness with difference; the general with the concrete; 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.
While this sensibility blends and harmonises the natural and the artificial, it still
subordinates art to nature, the manner to the matter and the admiration of the poet to
poetry. Finally, good sense is the body of poetic genius, fancy is its drapery, motion is its
life, and imagination is the soul that is found everywhere and forms into one graceful and
intelligent whole.
Distinction between Poem and Poetry
Coleridge mentions that “a poem contains the same elements as a prose
composition.” Both prose and poem use words. The difference between a poem and a
prose composition cannot be in the medium, for each employs the same medium, which
is a word. It must therefore “consist in a different combination of them in consequence of
a different object being proposed.” A poem combines words differently because it seeks
to do something different.
Coleridge says, “of course all it may be seeking to do may be to facilitate memory.
You may take a piece of prose and cast it into rhyme and metrical form in order to
remember it better.” Rhyming words of that kind with their recurring, “sounds and
quantities” yield a particular pleasure to, though not of a very high order. If one wants to
name a poem to the composition of this kind, there is no reason why one should not.
However, the use of rhyme is merely to increase pleasure. Coleridge mentions:
“But we should know that such rhyming tags have the charm of meter and rhyme, meter
and rhyme have been super added; they do not arise from the nature of the content, but
have been imposed on it in order to make it more easily memorized.” The use of rhyme
helps to memorise a poem.
The Function of Poetry
The “superficial form” also known as the externalities, do not provide a profound
logical reason for distinguishing different ways of handling language. Coleridge mentions:
“A difference of objects and contents supplies an additional ground of distinction.” The
philosopher would seek to differentiate between two ways of handling language by asking
what each seeks to achieve and how that aim determines its nature.
He says that the primary purpose is to communicate the truth or pleasure. A deep
pleasure is attained by communicating the truth. Coleridge insists that one must
distinguish between the ultimate and the immediate end. Similarly, if the immediate aim
should be the communication of pleasure, truth should be the ultimate end. In an ideal
society, anything that is not the truth would not yield pleasure.
It would be impossible for a literary work to communicate pleasure without having
any concern with “truth, either moral or intellectual.” The proper kind of distinction
between different kinds of writing can therefore be logically discussed in terms of the
difference in the immediate aim or function of each. The immediate aim of poetry is to
give pleasure.
The Significance of Meter
Coleridge argues that in works that are not composed metrically, the immediate
aim of the work could be the communication of pleasure. To the question whether such
works that are converted to poems by adding meter without rhyme would sound
appropriate, Coleridge replies that pleasure cannot be attained out of any work, which
does not arise naturally from the total nature of that work. To superadd meter is to provide
merely a superficial decorative charm.
It would be difficult to give permanent pleasure if all the parts of a work resonate.
Rhyme and meter involve “an exact correspondent recurrence of accent and sound”
which in turn “is calculated to excite” a “perpetual and distinct attention to each part.” A
poem therefore must possess an organic unity in such a way that while it is possible to
appreciate each part to which the regular use of accent and sound draw attention, the
pleasure in the whole develops out of such appreciation, which is simultaneously
pleasurable and conducive to the total pattern of the complete poem
The Difference between a Poem and a Work of Scientific Prose
A poem differs from a work of scientific prose in having as its immediate object,
pleasure and not truth and it differs from other kinds of writing, which have pleasure and
not truth as their immediate aim. In a poem, the pleasure attained from the whole work
is similar to the pleasure ingrained in each component part. A legitimate poem is a
composition in which the rhyme and the meter are in complete relation to the total work.
The constituent parts mutually support and explain each other in the right proportion,
harmonising with and supporting the purpose of the metrical arrangement.
Coleridge puts an end to the controversy whether the ultimate aim of poetry is to
instruct or delight or both. He affirms that the aim of poetry is definitely to give pleasure
and further poetry has its own distinctive pleasure, where the pleasure arises from the
parts and this pleasure of the parts supports and increases the pleasure of the whole.
Differences between a Poem and Poetry
Coleridge distinguishes a poem from poetry. For him, poetry is an activity of the
poet’s mind and a poem is merely one of the forms of its expression in words. Poetic
activity is grounded on imagination. Poetry, in the larger sense brings the whole soul of
man into activity with each faculty playing its proper part according to its relative worth
and dignity.
This activity takes place whenever the Secondary Imagination comes into
operation. Whenever the synthesising and the integrating powers of the Secondary
Imagination are at work, all aspects of a subject are brought into a complex unity, and
poetry, in this larger sense, materialises.
The employment of Secondary Imagination is important for poetic creativity.
Coleridge discusses the poet’s activity because he considers the poet to belong to the
larger company of those who distinguish themselves by the activity of their imagination.
A poem is the work of a poet who employs Secondary Imagination to achieve the harmony
of meaning and the reconciliation of opposites, which Coleridge stresses.
A poem is also considered to be a specific work of art produced by a special
handling of language. The harmony and reconciliation resulting from the special kind of
creative awareness produced by the use of imagination cannot operate over an extended
composition.
The meeting of blending and balancing, reconciliation of difference and sameness,
the general and the concrete, the idea and the image, the individual and the
representative, the sense of novelty and freshness of the old and the familiar objects and
so on cannot take place for an indefinite period. A long poem therefore cannot be
considered to be poetry. Coleridge says that there is no such thing as a long poem.
Rhyme and meter are appropriate to a poem considered in the larger sense of
poetry because they are means of achieving harmony and reconciling of opposites. The
objects of poetry are subject to the widest imaginative feeling.
---------------------------------- part 2
Published in 1817, Biographia Literaria is considered to be Coleridge’s seminal
work, which elaborates his conceptions of poetry, imagination and creativity, based on
early philosophical thinking and the nineteenth century theoretical thought.
Coleridge begins his treatise by referring to James Boyer, his secondary school
teacher at the grammar school named Christ’s Hospital. The years at this school forms
the basis for his poem “Frost at Midnight”. Coleridge believes the school to be the place
that stifled his creative potential due to formal education.
He explains that creativity and intellectual freedom exist beyond the bars of the
school windows, and real education can be obtained from experiences from the world
outside. He reiterates the need for maintaining relationship with Nature to be able to
question and receive answers related to the role of Nature in being the teacher of a child.
Children should be given the freedom to roam about rather than remain enclosed within
buildings. This would ensure the innate freedom of the spirit.
Having made the initial introduction, Coleridge proceeds to explain the evolution
of his critical precepts. He mentions about his early connection with the Associationist
psychology of David Hartley that holds the view that “new ideas emerge from associations
inherent in combinations of older ideas”. This means that new ideas are inherent in
combinations of earlier ideas.
Coleridge later refutes this notion because he believes that the human mind is not
a mere container for ideas that exist, but an active agent in the perception of reality. Since
reality becomes apparent from a discourse with Nature, Coleridge arrives at the
conclusion that reality is, in one way, constructed. This pronouncement is more or less
similar to Cartesian (named after René Descartes) way of thinking.
Coleridge then moves on to define imagination. He calls it an “esemplastic power”,
which is the power that enables the human soul to understand the universe in its raw
form, a spiritual unity. He believes that the spiritual unity of the universe is the only
ultimate “object” to be perceived, which means that any other objects could be regarded
as fancy or the products of other correlative functions of the human mind.
After propounding his thoughts on the terms “imagination” and “fancy”, Coleridge
provides a critique of Wordsworth’s poetry. Coleridge asserts that Wordsworth’s claim
that his poetry, in “common language” for ordinary people is not true. Wordsworth’s poetry
is as artificial as the poetry of any other poet because they are written consciously by the
poet.
In spite of the drawbacks in the Preface, Wordsworth stands out as an eminent
poet, probably the finest of the time. According to Coleridge, Wordsworth is able to
transform ordinary natural imagery into the extraordinary. Coleridge explains that his own
poetic endeavour is to render the supernatural, the realistic using natural language.
Coleridge rejects Wordsworth’s dictate that the language of poetry should be taken
from the utterances of men in real life. He asserts that there is no distinction between the
natural and unconscious language of prose and the metrical composition of poetry. All
language innately possesses meter and rhyme. He analyses some of the poems of
Wordsworth where the use of ordinary language could be replaced by more compelling
metrical expressions.
To conclude, Biographia Literaria is considered to be one of the most influential
principles on poetic creativity and artistic expression. Concentrating on philosophy,
Coleridge does not in any way take away the implications his discussion on creativity.
Coleridge’s definition of his own creative spirit to be natural, unforced and unpredictable
provides insight into his deliberate break with tradition.
Coleridge’s Disagreements with Wordsworth
Coleridge differs from Wordsworth on the following:
1) What constitutes the language of “real life”?
2) Whether the feelings of lesser educated farmers, probably of the early eighteenth
century are more genuine than the feelings of people in the higher classes?
3) Whether Aristotle’s principles of poetry do or do not govern poems and poetry?
4) What is to be done about language that is dull and garrulous in everyday conversation,
which is still dull and garrulous in poems? Wordsworth appears to refine the language so
to say. Coleridge is against refinement of all that is coarse in language because it renders
it the same as the language of higher classes.
5) Wordsworth’s poetry is about “low rustic” people, feelings, ideas that disproves his own
philosophic assertions because Coleridge refutes refinement of all that is coarse in
language.
6) The rustics’ focus on facts while individuals at higher levels of education, work and
experience focus on the connections between facts and the connection of facts to
governing laws, hence focusing on a higher order of thought, ideas, language,
conversation.
7) These support Coleridge’s view point that there is a difference between the language
of prose and poetry, while Wordsworth asserts that there is no difference.
Major Concerns of Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria
The three chapters – fourteen, seventeen and eighteen are concerned primarily
with a refutation of Wordsworth’s theories that
a) poetry should be written in the language of real life, the language of “the natural
conversation of men under the influence of natural feelings.” Whether this is applicable to
all poetry, or only to a certain kind has never been disputed. Besides, the word ‘real’
sounds ambiguous.
b) rustic life is the best poetical material, for in such conditions men live under nature’s
intimate influence and
c) there is no essential difference between the language of prose and metrical
composition.
Chapter fourteen deals with the distinction between poetry and a poem, which
Coleridge thinks is necessary to analyse before he goes on to criticise
Wordsworth’s criticism. Chapter eighteen is concerned with the language of prose
and verse, while chapter seventeen deals with the other theories. The chapter
describes the complementary aims that Wordsworth and Coleridge set for
themselves while composing the Lyrical Ballads.
Coleridge vindicates Wordsworth’s poetical reputation and asserts his right to
attach a preface since the bulk of the contribution has come from him. Coleridge
then explains the function of philosophical disquisition as analysis first and
synthesis later and states his proposition that “a poem contains as a prose
composition; the difference therefore must consist in a different combination of
them, in consequence of a different object proposed”. He explicates his organic
theory of a poem namely the inter-dependence of the parts. This excludes a
sequence of distichs like the compositions of the eighteenth-century poets, where
each distich is detachable and autonomous. Coleridge puts forward an organic, as
opposed to a mechanical, theory of poetry.
A Comparison of the Views of Wordsworth and Coleridge
Coleridge is indebted to Wordsworth in the study of imagination.
Wordsworth concentrates on the practice of poetry, primarily the influence of
imagination on poetry. Coleridge is the first critic to study the nature of imagination
and evaluate its role in artistic creativity.
Wordsworth uses the terms fancy and imagination as synonyms and does not
classify imagination as primary and secondary. Coleridge explains the differences
between fancy and imagination, and the roles they play in creative expression. He
explores the division of imagination into the Primary Imagination and the
Secondary Imagination and provides fresh insights into their function. Coleridge is
the first critic to have given an intense and philosophical explanation to creativity.
He gives importance to the actual process of creation than the finished product.
Wordsworth writes in a subjective manner and examines his state of mind before
writing a work. This explains the reason for his love of nature and his position as a
true worshipper of nature. Wordsworth believes in a primordial relationship
between the mind of man and nature around him. Coleridge, on the other hand, is
quite objective. His works are the products of factual and biographical descriptions
that surround his life.
Wordsworth’s writings are highly sequential and logical and they confine to a single
thought process, which is characteristic of his creative endeavours. Coleridge
writes in fragments and he is unable to maintain a single thought probably due to
the use of opium, for which he is notorious.
Wordsworth expresses neither anger nor rebellion in his writings. He does not
attack any person or any theory but seeks to establish his own views, while
Coleridge, in his Biographia Literaria dedicates some chapters to oppose and
assess Wordsworth’s ideals.
Wordsworth mentions in the Preface that there is no difference between the
language of prose and poetry as they both are one and the same thing, but
Coleridge differentiates these two concepts on the basis that poetry comprises of
meter and rhyme, while prose does not contain these.
Wordsworth, in his Preface believes that a “real” language that can communicate
to the common or rustic people should be the language of poetry. However,
Coleridge believes that there is no “real” language as language differs based on
education, culture, and belief among other factors, but that a “lingua communis” or
common language should be used for poetry.
Wordsworth’s Preface could be regarded as the manifesto of Romanticism
because it records the divergent attitude to poetry in the works of the Romantics,
but Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria is largely an autobiographical work, which
strayed from its immediate purpose along the course of the work and turned out to
be his lengthy philosophic treatise on the creative process and imagination. It also
showcased Coleridge’s powers as critic.
Wordsworth believes that poetry should contain events from real, common and
everyday life; in contrast, Coleridge believes that this feature is too limiting.
Wordsworth believes that a poem should be spontaneous and that it should arise
out of powerful emotions, which are recollected in tranquility. Coleridge believes
that poetry deals with the communication of both truth and pleasure and that some
poems may even lack pleasure and communicate only truth.
Wordsworth admonishes simplicity of diction and style, which is evident in the
Preface but Coleridge is known for the use of convoluted, esoteric and
philosophical language in Biographia Literaria.
Features of Coleridge’s Criticism
a. Philosophical and Psychological Basis
Coleridge was dissatisfied with the existing mode of criticism and therefore he
turned to philosophy and enunciated principles that sprang from the soul and touched the
deeper sources of inspiration and creation. Coleridge mentions: “metaphysics and
psychology have long been my hobby-horse.” He attributes special powers to the human
mind and thinks that artistic creation is an inner process, so he emphasis on the seminal
principle of creation. He makes use of psychological knowledge in defining fancy and
imagination and hence emphasises “method” in criticism.
“Method” means an awareness of the relationship between different things and
also between parts of a single entity. T.S.Eliot mentions that “Coleridge, with his authority
due to his great reading, probably did much more than Wordsworth to bring attention to
the profundity of the philosophical problems into which the study of poetry may take us.”
Eliot was probably referring to the use of poetry and the use of criticism.
Coleridge goes to the length of saying that poetry “owes it whole charm, and all its
beauty and all its power, to the philosophical principles of method.” The statement is
significant if “method” denotes unity and unifying power and “method” is hence similar to
the workings of creative imagination.
b. Descriptive Criticism
Coleridge applies his own theories of poetry and drama into practice and tries to
project their validity. Without his descriptive criticism, his theoretical criticism might have
appeared a metaphysical abstraction. His descriptive criticism, in terms of subject, falls
into three groups. First, Shakespearean criticism, principally in the 1811 -12 lectures
delivered on William Shakespeare and John Milton as well as various marginal writings
together with chapter fifteen of the Biographia Literaria.
Second, Coleridge emerges a critic of Wordsworth in the Biographia Literaria in
chapters fourteen, seventeen to twenty and twenty-two. Third, there are a series of
miscellaneous comments on various English poets of the seventeenth century in his
lectures, notes and even formal treaties. For instance, the tribute Coleridge pays to
Samuel Daniel in the eighteenth chapter of the Biograpahia Literaria, and Herberts
Temple in the nineteenth chapter.
In this connection, George Watson says, “…as a descriptive critic, his achievement
is brilliant but sporadic and offers no single example worthy to be advanced as a
model….No English critic has so excelled at providing profitable points of departure for
the twentieth century critic”.
c. Theoretical Criticism
Coleridge differs from almost all the English critics before him in his interest in
theoretical criticism. No English critic before John Dryden has concerned himself with the
question of poetic process. For the critics of the eighteenth century, a poem is simply
there and it is the variety and uniformity of human reaction to it that is worth discussing.
For Coleridge, the process of creation is important.
The aim of Coleridge as a critic is not so much the analysis of a finished product but
the search for a theoretical certainty. He mentions in chapter twenty-three of Biographia
Literaria that his aim is “to establish the principle of writing rather than to furnish rules how
to pass judgement on what has been written by others.” Coleridge’s views of the creative
act may be summarised in this manner. The truth that the poet seeks is not objective, that
it exists neither in the mind of the poet nor in what he sees around him, but in “the identity
of both” the one acting upon the other is a perceptual self-duplication.”
Coleridge’s Deficiencies as a Critic
There are some deficiencies in the critical writings of Coleridge. These deficiencies
are mainly due to the weakness of his nature and temperament. He lacks concentration
and does not possess the capacity for sustained work. His critical work suffers from lack
of system. His style of writing makes it more difficult for the reader to understand him. It
is never smooth and holds the quality of the art of conversation.
Coleridge’s views are too philosophical, which makes him a difficult critic. The
fragmentary and unsystematic method of Coleridge was not appreciated by the
Victorians. He appealed to a few writers and a few critics. Some great modern critics such
as T. S. Eliot, F. R. Leavis, F. L. Lucas, Allen Tate, and John Crowe Ransom have
departed from his Romanticism.
In spite of his deficiencies, Coleridge’s literary acumen remains unparalleled. I.A.
Richards acknowledges that his “theory of anaesthesis”, later renamed as “poetic
inclusion” owes something to Coleridge’s Secondary Imagination. The Imagists took over
Coleridge’s “fancy” as their territory of inquiry.
Critical Comments on Coleridge
The reputation of Coleridge as a critic is phenomenal. He is regarded by many
scholars to be the best English critic, and one of the best in Europe. René Wellék believes
that Coleridge’s critical theories have been borrowed from Kant, Schelling and Schlegel.
It is generally believed that Coleridge turned to criticism when his poetic powers began to
fail. He says that “at crucial points in his writing, Coleridge used Kant, Schelling and
Schlegel, reproducing the pattern of sentences and the exact vocabulary.”
In the Biographia Literaria, Coleridge makes a general acknowledgement to
Schelling. George Watson comments: “The achievement of Coleridge is rightly held to be
supreme among the English critics, but no one seeking to expound it can face critic with
much confidence.” He lays stress on the discursive nature of his critical writing. It is true
that in all his critical writings, Coleridge shows a lack of system.
Watson observes: “The Biographia Literaria is as discursive and sporadic in its
argument as almost to merit its subtitle “Biographical sketches. The important critical
writings of Coleridge include Biographia Literaria, Lectures on Shakespeare, The Friend,
The Table Talk, his contribution to Southey’s Omniana, Letters and the posthumous
Anima Poetae.
The Marxist critic Frederick Engels has observed that Coleridge’s division of the
imagination into the “primary” and “secondary’ draws a distinction between creative acts
that are unconscious and those that are intentional and deliberate.
Views of Some Critics
Saintsbury mentions: “So then there abide these three—Aristotle, Longinus, and
Coleridge.” According to Arthur Symons, Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria is “the greatest
book of criticism in English.” René Wellék is of the view that Coleridge is a link “between
German Transcendentalism and English Romanticism.” C’azamian observes: “No one
before him in England had brought such mental breadth to the discussion of aesthetic
values.”
R.A. Scott-James admires Coleridge for his union of heart and head. Herbert
Read considers Coleridge “as head and shoulders above every other English critic” and
sees him anticipating existentialism and Freud”. To F.L. Lucas, Coleridge’s statements
about imagination are “obscure and contorted, his classifications barren, his judgements
nonsensical, his theories windy, cloudy, mysterious.” T. S. Eliot pokes fun at Coleridge’s
“metaphysical hare-and-hounds.” Allen Tate thinks that Coleridge has “bequeathed to
later generations the ‘fatal legacy’ of indecision”.
Coleridge’s Achievements as a Critic
Coleridge is the first critic to introduce psychology and philosophy into literary
criticism. He is interested in the study of the process of poetic creation and analysis of
the principles of creative activity. For this purpose, he freely drew upon philosophy and
psychology. He made philosophy the basis of literary inquiry and synthesised philosophy,
psychology and literary criticism.
His literary theories are based on philosophy. He philosophised literary criticism
and brought about a better understanding of the process of poetic creation and the nature
and function of poetry. His unique contribution to literary criticism is his theory of
imagination. William Wordsworth and Joseph Addison had examined the nature and
function of imagination. But these discussions appear insignificant when compared to
Coleridge’s treatment of subject. He is the first critic to differentiate between imagination
and fancy and between Primary Imagination and Secondary Imagination.
Through his theory of imagination, he revolutionised the concept of artistic
imitation. Poetic imitation is neither a copy of nature nor the creation of something entirely
new, which is different from nature. Poetry is not imitation but creation based on the
sensations and impressions received from the external world. Such impressions are
shaped, ordered, and modified. Opposites are reconciled and harmonised by the
imagination of the poet and in this way poetic creation takes place.
Coleridge resolved the problem of the relation between the form and content of
poetry. Through his philosophical inquiry into the nature and value of poetry, he
established that a poem is an organic whole and its form is determined by its content, and
essential to that content.
Meter and rhyme are not “pleasure superadded”. They not merely something
superfluous, which can be dispensed with, not mere decoration, but essential to pleasure,
which is true poetic pleasure. This demonstration of the organic wholeness of a poem is
one of his major contributions to literary theory.
…………………………….
Appendix to lyrical ballads

The first edition of the ‘Lyrical Ballads’ was obviously an experimental attempt. Wordsworth was happy to note
that it proved to be popular and accessible beyond his expectations. His friends had wanted him to write a
preface to the poems as it were of a different kind. They also expected to explain his aims and objectives in the
preface. However, Wordsworth was unwilling to write a preface primarily for two reasons: he was little anxious
about the responses of the readers to such an elaborate explanatory note. He thought that the readers might
look coldly on his arguments. Furthermore, the space offered by a normal preface was too short for an adequate
defense of a theory of a new kind of poetry.
But his poems were so inventive, imaginative and innovative from the works popular at that time. So, the preface
became necessary in order to create a new flavor among the readers. The public was accustomed to the inane
phraseology and gaudy language (extravagantly ornamental and showy) of Alexander Pope and John Dryden.
The readers would find something original and unconventional in the poems of Wordsworth; this new wave
required an explanation.
His chief aim in writing the poems has been to choose incidents and situations from common life and to relate
them in a selection of the language really used by men. At the same time there would be a coloring of
imagination thrown over ordinary events. So, that would be presented to the mind in an unusual aspects.
He had chosen humble and rustic life for a number of reasons.
• in it the essential passions of human heart found a free, unstrained, plain and powerful expression.
• in rustic life the feelings are simpler, hence are more easily understood and more durable.
• in the humble condition the passions of men are closely connected with the beautiful and permanent
forms of nature.
Wordsworth used the language of these rustic and humble people, after having purified it of its roughness and
other defects. The rustic people live in constant communication with the best objects of nature, from which is
derived the best part of language. Their natural surroundings and narrow circle of social intercourse prevent
them from acquiring social vanity. The simple language in which they convey their feelings, is more permanent
and philosophical than the artificial diction used by the poets of the time. Wordsworth’s poems differ from those
of his contemporaries because his poems have a worthy purpose – that of enlightening the readers and purifying
their affections.
“poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings which takes its origin from emotions recollected in
tranquillity” However, worthy and noble poems are produced only when the poet has thought long and deep on
the subject matter. Wordsworth considers a poet as a man of more than usual organic sensibility, but also one
who has “thought long and deeply”, the poet’s feelings are modified by his thoughts which represent all our past
feelings; he becomes capable of connecting on thought with another, in this manner he is able to discover what
is really important and worthwhile.
whenever he composes poems, he selects only noble themes and lofty sentiments in a worthy manner. Such
poems will have a desirable impact on the readers’ sensibility too. Wordsworth implies that if a poet is always
given to noble thoughts and worthy ideas he will never fail to compose poems of a moral and noble note.
In “Lyrical Ballads” Wordsworth adopts the simple language of common men. He has avoided the use of the
artificial and hackneyed (conventional) devices of poetic diction used by his early contemporaries. He rarely used
personification of abstract ideas figures of speech, antithesis and similar devices. He tried to look at firmly at his
subject and used a language which fitted the ideas to be expressed.

Wordsworth maintained and practiced in “Lyrical Ballads” his theory that there is hardly any difference between
the language of prose and that of poetry. Even in the best poetry there are passages which have an order of
words, which is similar to that found in good prose compositions. The only difference is in the metre, as he puts
in the essay “there neither is nor can be any essential difference between the language of prose and the metrical
composition”. So, the only difference is that poetry uses metre. Otherwise, the “same human blood circulates
through the veins of both. They are relate with each other in their nature, function and appeal”.
Wordsworth is of the opinion that poetry is distinguished by its use of a selection of the language really used by
men. Such a selection is made with true taste and feeling so that the language of poetry would be free from the
roughness and vulgarity of ordinary life. The addition of metre to it becomes a further source of pleasure. He
holds the view that metre and rhyme are not indispensable to poetry. There can exist genuine poetry even
without metre. Metre is merely superadded. There is no need for artificial devices and foreign splendor. It is the
passion and emotion that matters. A judicial choice of subject would lead to appropriate emotion.
Wordsworth observes that the poet is basically a man speaking to men. He is a person who writes not for his
own pleasure but primarily to express his own thoughts and emotions to his readers. He is a person endowed
with a more lively sensibility, more enthusiasm and tenderness than ordinary people. He has a greater
knowledge of human beings. He has a greater degree of imagination and so he can feel or react emotionally to
events and incidents which he has not directly experienced.
Having a more comprehensive soul, the poet can share the emotional experiences of others. He can identify
himself emotionally with others and he can express the feelings and sentiments of others. He has greater amount
of zeal and enthusiasm for life than ordinary people. He rejoices in the spirit of life, in the activities of mankind
and in Nature at large and takes pleasure in communicating his own joy in life to others. Moreover he has greater
readiness and power in expressing what he thinks and feels.
Wordsworth agrees with Aristotle’s concept that poetry is the most philosophic of all writing. The object of
poetry is truth, no individual and local, but general and operative. Poetic truth is much higher than the truth of
history or philosophy. In fact, poetry is more philosophical than philosophy itself. While history deals merely with
particular facts and philosophy, with abstract truths, poetry alone deals both with the particular and the
universal. Poetry aims at universal truths and also illustrates them through particular instances and illustrations.
It is the mirror of human life and nature. Poetry is guided by sole consideration, namely, that of imparting
pleasure to the readers while giving a faithful picture of nature and reality. On the other hand, the historian and
the philosopher, function under several obstacles.
Poetry, says Wordsworth is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings which takes its origin from emotions
recollected in tranquillity. This definition of poetry gives us an idea of Wordsworth’s poetics. This definition
highlights the spontaneity and emotionalism of poetry. He says: “Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all
knowledge; it is the impassioned expression which is in the countenance of all sciences”. This definition explains
how poetry blends passions and knowledge. According to Wordsworth, poetic truth is superior to scientific truth,
for it is based on universal facts of life and hence can be appreciated by all. While the scientist makes only a
surface study, the poet probes into the inner reality and arrives at the soul of things. As he is a man of fine
sensibility, the truth which he discovers is surcharged with his personal emotions. These emotions are
recollected in serenity.
Wordsworth affixes an Appendix to his Preface to the Lyrical Ballads to express his views on Poetic diction. In
poetic diction Wordsworth could not agree with the poetic grounds of neoclassicism. He wanted poetry to be a
medium for expressing the feelings and aspiration of common man in common language. Wordsworth wrote
Lyrical Ballads to justify his theory and to see if he could produce pleasure by writing in the language of common
man. He says in the preface that his poems were a kind of experiment too knows how far the language of
conversation among the middle class and lower class in the society was suited for poetry. And also he stated that
his object was to choose incidents and situations from common life and describe them in a language used by
men.
The whole wave of Wordsworthian writings, both poetic and critical, was towards the
simplification of life. He also makes a fresh supplication to the readers to read his poems with an open mind,
and to judge for themselves if what the poet had set out to achieve and had been achieved.
The Structure

2nd pdf
Generally, the Preface can be divided into Four parts:
1. The Subject of Poetry
2. The Language of Poetry
3. The Poet
4. Poetry
The Subject of Poetry
1. A poem should deal with incidents and situations from common life.
2. Imagination should present ordinary things in an unusual way.
3. Low and rustic life should be chosen because in that condition, the essential
passions of the heart find a better soil in which they can attain maturity.
2
The Language of Poetry
The language “really used by men” is adopted. The language of common life conveys
feelings and notions in simple and unelaborated expressions. Simple language is
accordingly more permanent than a philosophical one.
The Poet
1. He is a man speaking to men.
2. He is has more lively sensibility, more enthusiasm and tenderness.
3. He has a greater knowledge of human nature, and a more comprehensive
soul, than are supposed to be common among mankind.
4. He is pleased with his own passions and volitions, and rejoices more than
other men in the spirit of life that is in him.
5. He has a disposition to be affected more than other men by absent things as
if they were present.
6. He has acquired a greater readiness and power in expressing what he thinks
and feels, and especially those thoughts and feelings which arise in him
without immediate external excitement.
Poetry
Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from
emotion recollected in tranquility.
The emotion is contemplated till by a species of reaction the tranquility gradually
disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of
contemplation is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind.
Poetry’s ultimate goal is pleasure.It is based on experience

Diction Diction is the use of language, but more specifically, it’s the choice of words, phrases, sentence
structures, and even figurative language. While diction is important in all of literature, Wordsworth places
particular importance on its role in poetry because it is the poet’s medium. While prose has characters, setting,
and plot to convey a message, the poet's choice of language, or diction, is the sole means of expression in poetry.
Despite this, Wordsworth argues that the diction of poetry and prose is the same, and criticizes the neo-
classicists for their “artificial” and “unnatural” language. Passion should drive diction, not ornament, dignity, or
meter. He wants poetry to center on rustic, humble situations using rustic, humble language. According to
Wordsworth, that is the real source of poetic truth and beauty
Poetry as the Language of Common People
The Preface to Lyrical Ballads presents Wordsworth's explanation for the new type of poetry he published in
1798. He continued to revise the Preface in the hope of gaining a larger reading audience and further recognition
by other writers. He rejects previous conventional approaches to literature as emotionally barren, overlooking
the connection he values between the thoughts and language of common people and the poet's ability to
transmit the experience at the same accessible level. He speaks of poetry as existing from the poet as one person
to other persons, with minimal or no intermediary needed. He recognizes some refinement of anything
considered vulgar or offensive would need revising, but otherwise no real barriers need exist. As a Romantic,
Wordsworth values the humble, rustic ways of countryfolk, people who he believes have directly experienced
the truths of nature. Their experiences can be transmitted in poetry that includes the same honesty and
directness that he finds in homogenous rural settings. Poems he creates spring from the overflow of genuine
feelings. These lead to reflection and simple wisdom and then are restated in ordinary language to recreate the
original emotion.
The Preface rejects reliance on standards from the Classical or Enlightenment eras—Pope and Johnson among
the British poets he names—because they overlook the lives of common people who speak humble and
unadorned language.

Prose and Poetry

Devoting much attention to emphasizing the close connection of poetry with prose, Wordsworth shows little
patience for efforts in past eras to perfect standards for either poetry or prose at the expense of the other. For
him, both share the same purpose: to speak plainly and honestly in language reflecting the lives of living people
and not close themselves off to the other form. He does not believe in a separation of poetry and prose as two
opposed approaches but instead states repeatedly they come from the same origins and spirit and should be
accessible at equal levels.
Wordsworth places little value on the factual or scientific in literature. He is far more interested in the emotions
arising from an immediate experience that is later reflected upon, assimilated, and understood. He can see the
significance of scientific inquiry and knowledge, but for speaking the truths of the lives of his contemporaries,
he keeps a distance between instinctive literature and applied scientific literature. For Wordsworth, this type of
literature does not unite the scientist with ordinary people on a daily basis, but instead keeps him isolated in a
world of facts. Writing as he was in the first years of the 1800s, he could not anticipate the enormous role
scientific research and experimentation has assumed since then. The Preface ushers in a new world of literary
sensibility, and is focused ahead of that changing world. However, scientifically, it seems naïve.

Role of the Poet

At the heart of the Preface, Wordsworth gives extended treatment to the role of a poet, according to the views
he has expressed on language and content. The poet is a person of the common people, attuned to them and
sensitive to their experiences, and at the same time the poet is someone in a special position. Wordsworth
explains, "The poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with him, rejoices in the presence of truth as
our visible friend and hourly companion." The poet is the "rock of defense for human nature; an upholder and
a preserver, carrying everywhere with him relations and love." Wordsworth adds, "The poet binds together by
passion and knowledge the vast empire of human society ... and over all time."

As the new scientists of Wordsworth's time forged ahead in chemistry and botany, so the poet represents "the
first and last of all knowledge ... as immortal as the heart of man ... The poet will lend his divine spirit to aid the
transfiguration" into knowledge. But for Wordsworth and others he hoped to inspire, the role of art stands far
apart from applied science of any kind. The poet remains a special person, an individual who can take the
ordinary experiences of common people and articulate those experiences coherently into felt passions and
controlled emotions that touch on moral truth and rightness.