Biographia Literaria by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Biographia Literaria
by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Biographia Literaria, a work by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, was published in two volumes in 1817. Another edition of the work, to which Coleridge’s daughter Sara appended notes and supplementary biographical material, was published in 1847.
The first volume of the book recounts the author’s friendship with poets Robert Southey and William Wordsworth. Coleridge goes on to describe the influences on his philosophical development, from his early teachers to such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, Johann Fichte, and Friedrich von Schelling. This section includes his well-known discussion of the difference between fancy and imagination. In the second volume Coleridge concentrates on literary criticism and proposes theories about the creative process and the historical sources of the elements of poetry.
Biographia Literaria was the most important work of literary criticism of the English Romantic period, combining philosophy and literary criticism in a new way, and it was lastingly influential.
💦💦💦💦💦
Volume- 1
💫 Chapter: 1 [excerpt]
As the result of all my reading and meditation, I abstracted two critical aphorisms, deeming them to comprise the conditions and criteria of poetic style;—first, that not the poem which we have read, but that to which we return, with the greatest pleasure, possesses the genuine power, and claims the name of essential poetry;—secondly, that whatever lines can be translated into other words of the same language, without diminution of their significance, either in sense or association, or in any worthy feeling, are so far vicious in their diction. Be it however observed, that I excluded from the list of worthy feelings, the pleasure derived from mere novelty in the reader, and the desire of exciting wonderment at his powers in the author. Oftentimes since then, in pursuing French tragedies, I have fancied two marks of admiration at the end of each line, as hieroglyphics of the author’s own admiration at his own cleverness. Our genuine admiration of a great poet is a continuous undercurrent of feeling! it is everywhere present, but seldom anywhere as a separate excitement. I was wont boldly to affirm, that it would be scarcely more difficult to push a stone out from the Pyramids with the bare hand, than to alter a word, or the position of a word, in Milton or Shakespeare, (in their most important works at least,) without making the poet say something else, or something worse, than he does say. One great distinction, I appeared to myself to see plainly between even the characteristic faults of our elder poets, and the false beauty of the moderns. In the former, from Donne to Cowley, we find the most fantastic out-of-the-way thoughts, but in the most pure and genuine mother English, in the latter the most obvious thoughts, in language the most fantastic and arbitrary. Our faulty elder poets sacrificed the passion and passionate flow of poetry to the subtleties of intellect and to the stars of wit; the moderns to the glare and glitter of a perpetual, yet broken and heterogeneous imagery, or rather to an amphibious something, made up, half of image, and half of abstract meaning. The one sacrificed the heart to the head; the other both heart and head to point and drapery.
👉Summary (Paraphrase)
After much reading and reflection, I distilled two essential principles of poetic style: First, true poetry is not just a poem we have read once, but one we happily return to. Second, if lines of a poem can be rephrased in the same language without losing their meaning or emotional impact, then the diction is flawed. I exclude from "worthy feelings" those arising merely from novelty or the author's attempt to impress. In examining French tragedies, I often imagined the author's self-admiration as evident in excessive marks of approval at the end of each line. Genuine admiration for a poet is a steady, underlying feeling, rarely expressed as a distinct excitement. I used to assert that altering a single word or its placement in the works of Milton or Shakespeare would be almost as challenging as moving a stone from the Pyramids, as it would change the meaning significantly. I noticed a clear difference between the older poets, who, despite their eccentricities, wrote in genuine English, and modern poets, who, despite their elaborate imagery, often have more mundane ideas expressed in arbitrary language. The older poets sacrificed the emotional flow of poetry for intellectual subtleties, while modern poets sacrifice both emotion and intellect for flashy and fragmented imagery.
👉Key Discussions
Two critical aphorisms on poetic style:
💧1. Essential poetry that possesses genuine power is not the poem that we read but the one to which we return to with the greatest pleasure.
💧2. If the lines of a poem can be translated into other words in the same language, without dimunition of their significance in sense, association or feeling then their diction is vicious (defective).
Author's self admiration:
While considering French tragedies, he fancies two marks of admiration at the end of each line as hieroglyphics of the author's admiration of their own cleverness.
Genuine admiration of great poet:
It is a continuous under-current of feeling that is present everywhere but not evident as seperate excitement.
He further states the challenge involved in altering the words or position of words in works written by Milton and Shakespeare, as that cannot be done without changing the original meaning. It's as difficult as pushing a stone from the pyramids.
Distinction between characteristics faults of elder poets and false beauty of the moderns:
Elder poets like Donne to Cowley- fantastic out of the way thoughts in pure and genuine mother English. They sacrificed passionate (emotion) flow of of poetry to subtleties of intellect and starts of wit. Sacrificed heart to head.
Moderns- most obvious thoughts, language fantastic and arbitrary. They sacrificed emotion and intellect to glare and glitter of perpetual, broken and heterogeneous imagery, sometime half image and half abstract. Sacrificed heart and headpoint to point and drapery.
💦💦💦💦💦
💫Chapter: 4 [excerpt]
This excellence, which in all Mr. Wordsworth’s writings is more or less predominant, and which constitutes the character of his mind, I no sooner felt, than I sought to understand. Repeated meditations led me first to suspect, (and a more intimate analysis of the human faculties, their appropriate marks, functions, and effects matured my conjecture into full conviction) that fancy and imagination were two distinct and widely dif ferent faculties, instead of being, according to the general belief, either two names with one meaning, or at furthest, the lower and higher degree of one and the same power. It is not, I own, easy to conceive a more opposite translation of the Greek Phantasia, than the Latin Imaginatio; but it is equally true that in all societies there exists an instinct of growth, a certain collective, unconscious good sense working progressively to desynonymize those words originally of the same meaning, which the conflux of dialects had supplied to the more homogeneous languages, as the Greek and German: and which the same cause, joined with accidents of translation from original works of dif fer ent countries, occasion in mixt languages like our own. The first and most important point to be proved is, that two conceptions perfectly distinct are confused under one and the same word, and (this done) to appropriate that word exclusively to one meaning, and the synonyme (should there be one) to the other. But if (as will be often the case in the arts and sciences) no synonyme exists, we must either invent or borrow a word. In the present instance the appropriation had already begun, and been legitimated in the derivative adjective: Milton had a highly imaginative, Cowley a very fanciful mind. If therefore I should succeed in establishing the actual existences of two faculties generally different, the nomenclature would be at once determined. To the faculty by which I had characterized Milton, we should confine the term imagination; while the other would be contra- distinguished as fancy. Now were it once fully ascertained, that this division is no less grounded in nature, than that of delirium from mania, or Otway’s Lutes, lobsters, seas of milk, and ships of amber,7 from Shakespeare’s What! have his daughters brought him to this pass? or from the preceding apostrophe to the elements; the theory of the fine arts, and of poetry in par tic u lar, could not, I thought, but derive some additional and important light. It would in its immediate effects furnish a torch of guidance to the philosophical critic; and ultimately to the poet himself. In energetic minds, truth soon changes by domestication into power; and from directing in the discrimination and appraisal of the product, becomes influence in the production. To admire on principle, is the only way to imitate without loss of originality.
👉Summary (Paraphrase)
The excellence present throughout Mr. Wordsworth's works, which reveals the nature of his mind, captivated me immediately, and I sought to comprehend it. Through ongoing reflection, I first suspected, and then became fully convinced after a deeper analysis of human faculties, that fancy and imagination are two distinct and vastly different faculties. This contradicted the common belief that they were either synonymous or simply different degrees of the same power. It may be difficult to see the stark difference between the Greek Phantasia and the Latin Imaginatio, but it is equally true that in all societies, there exists an instinctive, collective wisdom that gradually differentiates words that originally had the same meaning, particularly in languages with a mix of dialects, like Greek, German, and English. The key point to establish is that two distinct concepts have been mistakenly merged under one term. Once this is recognized, we can assign one word to one concept and, if necessary, create or borrow a new term for the other. In this case, the distinction had already begun with the use of the adjectives imaginative for Milton and fanciful for Cowley. Therefore, if I can demonstrate that these two faculties are indeed different, the terms imagination and fancy would be appropriately assigned. If this division is found to be as natural as the distinction between delirium and mania, or between Otway's fantastical imagery and Shakespeare's dramatic moments, then the theory of fine arts and poetry, in particular, would gain important new insights. This distinction would serve as a guide to critics and, ultimately, to poets themselves. In passionate minds, truth quickly transforms into creative power, influencing both the evaluation of art and the creation of it. To admire something on principle is the only way to imitate it without losing originality.
👉Key Discussions
Greatness of Wordsworth:
The greatness of Wordworth's works is evidence of the character of his mind. Coleridge is captivated by Wordsworth for this reason.
Fancy and Imagination:
His intimate analysis of human faculties through repeated meditations has revealed a certain fact about the words fancy and imagination. Both fancy and imagination, according to Coleridge, are two distinct and widely different faculties. But according to general belief there are two notions
💧1. they are two names with one meaning - synonymous (or)💧2. the lower and higher degree of one and the same power - different degree of power.
Challenging aspect:
It is a challenge and it's quiet difficult to differentiate the words fancy and imagination that have been thought to be the same although both terms originated from different languages. Fancy has its origin in the Greek Phantasia while imagination is from the Latin term Imaginatio. In the attempt to desynonymize these terms the reasons for confusion are found. The reasons seemed to be due to accidents of translation and the mix languages that are an outcome of the conflux of dialects.
Process of distinction:
So, inorder differentiate the terms fancy and imagination, the first point is
💧 to prove that two conceptions perfectly distinct are confused under one and the same word💧 to appropriate that word to one meaning and the synonyme to another.
If there is no synomyme then a word can be invented or borrowed.
Demonstration:
Coleridge attributes the terms fancy and imagination as adjectives to the writers Milton and Cowley. He states, " Milton had a highly imaginative mind, while Cowley had a fanciful mind.
Theory of fine arts and poetry:
If the distinction can be done as natural as the distinction between delirium and mania, or between Otway's fantastical imagery and Shakespeare's dramatic moments, then the theory of fine arts and poetry, in particular, would gain important new insights. It would serve as a torch of guidance to the philosophical critic and the poet.
In energetic minds, truth quickly transforms into creative power, influencing both the appraisal (evaluation) of the product (art) and the production (creation) of it. To admire something on principle is the only way to imitate it without losing originality.
💦💦💦💦💦
💫Chapter: 13 [excerpt]
The imagination then I consider either as primary, or secondary. The primary imagination I hold to be the living Power and prime Agent of all human Perception, and as a repetition in the finite mind of the eternal act of creation in the infinite I am. 1 The secondary I consider as an echo of the former, coexisting with the conscious will, yet still as identical with the primary in the kind of its agency, and differing only in degree, and in the mode of its operation. It dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, in order to re- create; or where this pro cess is rendered impossible, yet still at all events it strug gles to idealize and to unify. It is essentially vital, even as all objects (as objects) are essentially fixed and dead. Fancy, on the contrary, has no other counters to play with, but fixities and definites. The Fancy is indeed no other than a mode of Memory emancipated from the order of time and space; and blended with, and modified by that empirical phenomenon of the will, which we express by the word choice. But equally with the ordinary memory it must receive all its materials ready made from the law of association.
👉Summary (Paraphrase):
I categorize imagination into two types: primary and secondary. I view primary imagination as the fundamental force and central mechanism of all human perception, reflecting the infinite act of creation within the finite mind. In contrast, secondary imagination is like a reflection of the primary, operating alongside conscious will. Although it shares the same nature of activity as the primary imagination, it differs in intensity and operation. The secondary imagination breaks down and disperses ideas to recreate them, or when that is not possible, it strives to idealize and unify. It remains essentially dynamic, unlike objects, which are fixed and lifeless.
Fancy, on the other hand, deals only with fixed and defined elements. It is essentially a form of memory that is freed from the constraints of time and space, influenced by the empirical aspect of will, which we describe as choice. Like ordinary memory, it relies on pre-existing materials governed by the law of association.
👉Key Discussions
Imagination types:
The two types of imagination are primary and secondary.
Primary imagination:
💧It is the living Power and prime Agent of all human Perception.💧It is the infinite eternal act of creation inside the finite mind.
It has the divine power, the creation of the self I am. However, because it is not subject to human will, the poet has no control over the primary imagination. It is the intrinsic quality of the poet that makes him or her a Creator; the primary imagination can be likened to poetic genius.
Secondary imagination:
💧It is an echo of primary imagination, coexisting with the conscious will.
💧It is identical to primary imagination in its kind of agency and differs in degree and mode of operation.
💧 In oder to recreate, it dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, it struggles to idealize and unify.
Fancy:
Fancy has no types. It deals with fixities and definites. It is a mode of Memory emancipated (freed) from the order of time and space, blended with & modified by the empirical phenomenon of will otherwise referred to as CHOICE. Like ordinary memory, it receives materials that are governed by the law of association.
💦💦💦💦💦
Comments
Post a Comment