in the whole work. In August, 1815, the first instalment of manuscript was sent to the printers (Messrs. John Evans and Co., of Bristol), who had agreed to publish one volume of autobiographical matter, and one of poetry. But while the printing was in progress, Coleridge, misled, as he says, by his printer's assurances, continued to write and write until he had prepared more matter than a single volume could hold.1 In October he tells Stuart that he has sent the manuscript of the Life and the poems to the printer, and is turning to other tasks. But no final arrangement as to the form of publication was reached until April of the next year (1816), when it was agreed to publish the work in three volumes, the Biographia to make two. Soon afterwards, however, a dispute arose between Coleridge and his printers, which lasted for many months, and eventually resulted in his transferring the whole of the printed matter to Messrs. Gale and Fenner, of London.3 Meantime fresh causes of delay arose. The second volume was not yet long enough, and its completion was interrupted by differences with the new publishers. On September 22, 1816, Coleridge writes, 'I will commence next week with the matter which I have been forced by the blunder and false assurance of the printer to add to the literary Life, in order to render the volumes of something like the same size.' This fresh matter (which is contained in Vol. II, Chapter xxii) consisted of an appreciation of Wordsworth's poetry, which was thus severed by more than a year from the chapters dealing with the theory of poetic diction. As the second See the Life, p. 212, footnote. Mr. Dykes Campbell bases his conclusions on some unprinted letters which I have not seen. Life, p. 223. 2 Ib., p. 227. The actual transfer did not take place till May, 1817, but the negotiations with the London publishers were already going on in the summer of 1816. See Lippincotts Mag., June, 1874 (Some Unpublished Letters of S. T. Coleridge')." volume was still too small, it was at first proposed to 'fill the gap' with the newly-finished Zapolya: but finally the German letters were chosen, 'as in every respect more appropriate." To these were added the 'Critique on Bertram', which had already appeared in five numbers of the Courier (Aug. 29 and Sept. 7, 9, 10, and 11, 1816); a concluding chapter was appended, a few introductory pages prefixed; and thus, in the late summer of 1817,2 the Biographia Literaria finally struggled into life. The circumstances of its production are thus sufficient to explain why the Biographia Literaria should be the 'immethodical miscellany' which Coleridge himself styles it. Further, we must remember that at the time of its composition Coleridge's health and spirits had sunk to their lowest ebb. Even if there was any definite project in his mind, he was hardly in a fit state to carry it out. Yet among the various motives and 'states of mind' which are expressed in the miscellaneous character of the book one motive was, I believe, especially predominant the desire, on Coleridge's part, to state clearly, and defend adequately, his own poetic creed. This purpose is more or less evident throughout the work, and to this it owes what unity it can be said to possess. It is with this end in view that, in the autobiographical portion of the book, he describes the growth of his own literary convictions; that, in the philosophical, he seeks to refer them to first principles; and that, in the criticism of Wordsworth's poetry and poetic theory, he emphasizes the differences which, as he imagines, exist between Wordsworth and himself. Regarded in this light, even Satyrane's letters and the 'Critique on Bertram' are not wholly out of place; for they illustrate the continuity of his opinions. 1 Lippincott's Mag., ib. 2 The actual month was July, not March, as Mr. Dykes Campbell, by an unusual oversight, states. This desire on Coleridge's part was both just and natural. More than fifteen years had elapsed since Wordsworth had expounded his theory of poetry. The views then made public were in great measure the fruit of long and frequent discussions with Coleridge; but, as they stand in the Preface, they by no means wholly coincided with Coleridge's own opinions. When the second edition of the Lyrical Ballads appeared in 1802, Coleridge felt it necessary to remove the current impression that the language of the Preface represented his own standpoint as well as Wordsworth's. This purpose he effected privately, in letters written to his friends'; and publicly he proposed to effect it also, by stating at large, in a volume of selec tions from contemporary poets, his views on the true nature of poetry. Of this project he writes to Southey in 1802, 'Of course, Darwin and Wordsworth having given each a defence of their mode of poetry, and a disquisition on the nature and essence of poetry in general, I shall necessarily be led rather deeper.' But the project came to nothing, and Coleridge remained content, for fourteen years, to circulate his views in private, or at best through the medium of lectures. Meanwhile, however, the need for their expression had not decreased, but had grown tenfold more imperative. For not only had critics and) public continued to include Coleridge, as a matter of course, in their estimate of Wordsworth's poetry and theories, but Wordsworth's own meaning had been grossly misunderstcod, and often enough as wilfully misinterpreted. This slang' (of affected simplicity and meanness of thought and diction) 'has gone on for fourteen or fifteen years against us,' writes Coleridge in 1813, 'and really deserves to be exposed.' And he felt no doubt that all things pointed to him as the right person to undertake the task. Yet 2 1 See note to Biog. Lit., vol. ii, p. 7, 1. 34. ( (and the fact is characteristic) it was not until he had gathered up energy enough to prepare a new edition of his poems, that he was led, half incidentally, to prepare the long-needed vindication. There is thus no doubt that Coleridge had sufficiency of motives for his desire to enlighten the public as to his conception of the real nature and functions of poetry. But the question still suggests itself, how far the actual tone and spirit of the critique is explained or justified by these motives. It cannot indeed be fairly contended that Coleridge's criticisms, considered as criticisms of the views explicitly laid down in the Preface, are wholly unjust or beside the mark. In the attempt to state his position philosophically, Wordsworth was undoubtedly betrayed into fallacies, and it was right that these fallacies should be exposed, the more so that they bore the authority of Wordsworth's name. But while Coleridge was thus rendering an important service to the public, there lay open to him the opportunity of rendering a service more important still; and that was, of making clear the real purpose which Wordsworth had at heart in writing his Preface. That Coleridge has accomplished this task in his critique, the most sympathetic reader will hardly be prepared to admit. Here and there, indeed, he has indicated Wordsworth's true position; but he has not made it the basis of his criticism. Yet this he might have done without neglecting the errors into which Wordsworth undoubtedly did fall; and these would then have appeared in their true light, not as contradictions of Wordsworth's unconscious practice, but as the results of an imperfect self-analysis. Coleridge's failure to make this use of this opportunity is to be re 1 Cp. e.g. Biog. Lit. ii, pp. 28 and 69. It is worthy of notice that Coleridge nowhere in his criticism of the Preface upholds the position which it is the object of the Preface to overthrow— viz., that there should exist a distinct poetic vocabulary. gretted; not only because it contributed to the general misunderstanding of Wordsworth's position, but also because it raises the suspicion that Coleridge wrote under the influence of personal feelings, of a mind embittered by estrangement and misinterpretation.1 Something at least must have occurred to pervert Coleridge's vision, if he could really believe that in his criticisms in the Biographia Literaria he was serving Wordsworth's cause (and this cause was his own also) to the best of his ability. And he does appear to have been fully contented with what he had written. 'I have done my duty to myself and to the public,' he writes to a friend,' 'in, as I believe, completely subverting the theory, and proving that the poet never acted upon it except in particular instances, which are the blots upon his poetry.' So Coleridge judged, and judged no doubt honestly. Others, however, will feel that the claims of the public would have been more fully satisfied had they been set right, once for all, as to Wordsworth's aim and Coleridge's duty to himself more adequately realized, if he had been instrumental in rendering this service to his friend. In the same letter Coleridge anticipates Wordsworth's displeasure at the criticisms of his theory and poetry. In this, at any rate, he judged rightly. To Crabb Robinson Wordsworth confided that 'the Biographia Literaria had given him no pleasure. The praise he considered extravagant, and the censure inconsiderate'. Yet many of the passages, which Coleridge had singled out for censure, Wordsworth afterwards altered, in deference, no doubt, to the views expressed by Coleridge. The changes thus 3 1 Cp. Crabb Robinson, Diary, &c., Dec. 21, 1822: 'Of Wordsworth I believe Coleridge judges under personal feelings of unkindness.' 26 'Unpublished Letters of S. T. Coleridge,' Westm. Review, April and July, 1870. Crabb Robinson, Diary, &c., Dec. 4, 1817. |