Minimums “It“ ,,/‘. HHIHHHHW ‘ ....__._:._.__._.___.4..... .4... _._.4..__.: ..._.....__4:.. .1..4.4..,._ 5.1.7.. S. . 04.1; 4». 1.4 :1}: .31.. .4. . :....4I,.... ... .44.v.€4., ... .i..:..>....rf y. . . . .p A . . . . , 41...... Wank .5. , ,1. MW. .InU... _, . .. , , , . ,. . , , , . ..,..,,.,,m...fl...m..,...,u..., 4. . 4. . . ..... . U 4 . .4 . .. . . :U .... ‘ 404 TN . ’|.. . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . T, .g, .j.:0._..C...:N..._ whom . . , a] : 10.5.3. _.D MW%1 ,. , _ ,..:n..m._E .:m.GT . _ . w._..., W. T; M II...— . E a W, N _ , . , M F . ,. . An. N S . ntufiwl This is to certify that the thesis entitled SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE'S CRITICAL RECEPTION IN FIVE MAJOR NINETEENTH CENIURY PERIODICALS presented bg Patricia Ward D'Itri has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ph.D. degree in EngliSh Major professor Date Februa 27 1969 0-169 ‘F—YI‘ m . .. .s _ “cm—unsav-wfiw—i. .2. 5mm HVEXLN Ehree quarterly 1 :2.“ 0f the litera firme' The exter 3:11: make the: 511 £1310! Colerid xlfetim to the e V ‘ith the intrc .L: centimi a1 ( hese laEaz ine “films, and thew I": “19 cultural c' N: century Wade EN». _, 0% 0.00m him V ABSTRACT SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE'S CRITICAL RECEPTION IN FIVE MAJOR NINETEENTH CENTURY PERIODICALS By Patricia Ward D'.Itri l Three quarterly reviews: the Edinburgh Review, the Quarterly Meg, and the Westminster Review, as well as the monthly Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine and the weekly Athenae1m1 shaped the form and function of the literary review in nineteenth century periodical literature. The extensive circulation and long duration of these journals make them significant indicators of critical attitudes toward Samuel Taylor Coleridge's life and work from their beginnings during his lifetime to the end of the nineteenth century. Thus, this study begins with the introduction of the Edinburgh Review in 1802 and ends with its centennial edition in 1902. These magazines represent various political, social, and literary Standards; and they shared the conviction that it was their duty to Shape the cultural development of their middle and upper class nine— teenth century readers. Their reception of Coleridge's writings and of books about him was influenced by these standards and by this Mm of their 80d Emmi“ °f COM mot various cultm mm he reception of 2mm falls into 2133: all five °f d 1213115 on political :hize's major Pm :‘E‘aed and given th :aiby the politic“ 2m Coleridge on tl hmlhbtolE 373: of Coleridge': fir-Lions of the p8 tit-:1 by Joseph Cot illgorary moral ve Spark drug addi< Risers the their “singly more ob .ng' . age 5 prose. Patricia Ward D'Itri conception of their social role. The presentstudyattempts to trace ‘ the reputation of Coleridge in the nineteenth century within the frame— work of various cultural points of view represented by these five . journals. The reception of Coleridge's poetry, prose, and biography during the century falls into three distinct periods. First, between 1802 I and 1834 all five of the journals were founded and stated their initial positions on political and cultural matters. At the same time Coleridge's major prose works and several editions of his poetry were published and given their initial reviews. These reviews were strongly biased by the political positions of the journals and personal biases toward Coleridge on the part of individual reviewers. From 1834 to 1870 the second period is dominated first by reviews of Coleridge's lag Talk and Literary Remains and then by evaluations of the personal recollections of Samuel Taylor Coleridge written by Joseph Cottle and James Gillman. Critics had to reconcile contemporary moral values with the revelations in these works about the poet's drug addiction. Such issues were of more importance to reviewers than their political biases, and this period also marks increasingly more objective critical standards and greater interest in Coleridge‘ s prose . me third perm hmfiied scholarly Livers in 19°de 'jmry CIitiCifl 31 mined to be here 1:015 on various 5 :En'dge's writing ‘-‘ "an study of vari ransom 'uith Tore E earlier years. I fer-st to critics 1 :1517 to the end 0 By no ring the ~=~ . citations of C .1 MIN reveals 5 this: of “ otuel “574% Stadards c ‘~ fie collection c \‘Lfit in his V'Ol'l Patricia Ward D'Itri The third period, from 1870 to 1902, is distinguished by intensified scholarly efforts to: collect Coleridge's marginalia and letters in recognition of his position as an established poet. His r literary criticism alsoattracted some notice, although reviewers continued to be more interested in Coleridge's biography than in his opinions on various subjects. The collection of fragments of ' Coleridge's writing was part of the critical trend toward closer textual study of various manuscripts .at the end of the century in comparison with more general assessments of his poetry and prose in the earlier years. But the poet's biography continued to be of major interest to critics from the publication of the Biographia Literaria in 1817 to the end of the century. By noting the basis for nineteenth century critical standards and evaluations of Coleridge's life and work in these periodicals, this study reveals some of the groundwork upon which twentieth century criticism of Samuel Taylor Coleridge has been built in terms of changing standards of evaluation, the assessments that were made, and the collection of scattered fragments of his writing that such interest in his work generated. Sl‘lUEI. I! FIVE! Subjitea 1 or: A STUDY OF .SAMUEL TAYLORCOLERIDGE'S CRITICAL RECEPTION IN FIVE MAJOR NINETEENTH CENTURY PERIODICALS By PATRICIA WARD D'ITRI A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English 1969 Copyright by PATRICIA WARD D'ITRI 1969 ; 1:. particular? in n. E73352: C. Dani E956, fé’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am particularly indebted to Professor Elwood P. Lawrence, Professor C. David Mead, and Professor James Hill for their consideration and scholarly aid while serving as the Guidance Committee for this study. ii Admovledgteuts . 1 Introduction ' I Cuaracteristics o Eiineteent’u Centur I Coleridge's Criti ~- foleridge's Criti '_I Coleridge's Criti Conclusion . . Table of Contents Chapter . II III IV Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Five Periodicals in Relation to Nineteenth Century Cultural Values and Coleridge's Art . Coleridge's Critical Reception Between 1802 and 1835 . Coleridge's Critical Reception Between 1835 and 1870 . Coleridge's Critical Reception Between 1870 and 1902 . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page ii 70 . 132 O 209 . 292 . 304 Although a survey ‘ ifive major nineteenth motion of his curren Storing critical attitu mushy as they develo fluoride a broader be thin gong. Critical judl iezeenth century have Eluences waned and CY szziy is not to evaluat titlcisn but to traders ”Civics have built, '10 thou they were reso :tégressed. And from 31 “(as nature of Coler Eczeenth century can In spite of the tieenth century pet ~-le:1d u go 3 recEption INTRODUCTION Although a survey of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's critical reception in five major nineteenth century periodicals will not prompt a revised evaluation of his current status as a poet and literary critic, studying critical attitudes toward Coleridge's poetry, prose, and biography as they developed and were reformulated between 1802 and 1902 can provide a broader basis on which to understand modern critical opinions. Critical judgments of Coleridge's literary reception in the nineteenth century havebeen reinforced or obscured as contemporary influences waned and critical standards changed. The effort in this study is not to evaluate the quality of this nineteenth century criticism but to understand the basis from which twentieth century critics have built, to determine what critical questions were asked and how they were resolved or revised as the nineteenth century progressed. And from these questions and answers, some conclusions as to the nature of Coleridge's reputation as a man of letters in the nineteenth century can be obtained. In spite of the vitriolic criticism that was common in early nineteenth century periodicals, Scott, Southey, and Wordsworth enjoyed a steadily increasing favorable reputation with the critical press. Coleridge's reception does not conform to the pattern represented by ‘. g i' 3| ‘1 l2 be: we“, mm; M was for this in the ‘ For this studya Cr meals Publjshed in illbe examinEdo Ihe P remedy MERE M mm, the monthly fl qwmerly m E 1101’ these magazines ‘ mined into the Mn Que still being m the “Q Q ceased publicati Ere published, the ex1 375: they played as aw ii Literary matters, finds re‘l t ects sign tunneteenth century Since the edit01 ilgation to direct t retained themselves Hit. And these Sui ETil'u‘etions of litera liirstan d Coleridge' these poets, however; and this study will attempt to discover the reasons for this in the light of nineteenth century critical standards. For this study, criticism of Coleridge in five leading periodicals published in Scotland and England between 1802 and 1902 Will be examined. The periodicals commenced publication with the quarterly Edinburgh Review in 1802, followed by the Quarterly Review in 1808, the monthly Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine in 1817, the quarterly Westminster Review in 1824, and the weekly Athenaeum in 1828. All of these magazines were introduced during Coleridge‘s lifetime and continued into the twentieth century. Blackwood's and the Quarterly My; are still being published; the Athenaeum was incorporated into the Nation; the Westminster Review ended in 1914, and the Edinburgh Review ceased publication in 1929.. Because of the length of time they were published, the extent of their readership, and particularly the role they played as authoritarian voices on major political, social, and literary matters, Coleridge's critical reception in these journals reflects significant attitudes toward his life and work in the nineteenth century. Since the editors of these journals assumed that they had an obligation to direct the cultural development of their readers, they proclaimed themselves authorities on literature, politics, and social reform. And these subjects were the foundation on which critical evaluations of literary artists and their works were built. To understand Coleridge's critical reception in these periodicals, then, w m“ “mew the literary taste, " him of the aristocrat afsodgty lust be under edition of the term " hone a goal Which 99°F he periodicals directed fliedture of the reads Besides the cultm 3.13%! classes of ninete: hams of the periodi Kits, and attitude l’ect the political, 3, “Ship, the editors Emmet} the po li ti cal me toward a literal Elliot's ' - Polltles agree “mined Whether the .. , .“:v I ,1 6" Almg the m Fiiitio ‘ n '5 Drasented {Title - '"esminste I ' : M % 'IQ‘I‘.‘ LlilC DUbliCatior 4i“. .umal also “Cor 3. the way reviewers 1mderstood their roles as leaders in the development of the literary taste, morals, and attitudes toward politics and social reform of the aristocracy and particularly of the growing middle class of society must be imderstood. Therefore, this study begins with a definition of the term "culture" insofar as the concept of culture became a goal which pe0ple believed could be attained and toward which the periodicals directed their attention in their efforts to improve the culture of the readership and of society. Besides the cultural goals which these publications set for the upper classes of nineteenth century British society, the reviewing patterns of the periodicals will be noted as well as their readership, politics, and attitude toward social reform. In their efforts to direct the political, moral, social, and literary tastes of the readership, the editors often, especially during Coleridge's lifetime, permitted the political standards of the journals to determine the stance toward a literary work being reviewed. Whether or not the author's politics agreed with the political policy of the magazine determined whether the author‘s work was positively or negatively received. Among the major political views in British society, the Whig position is presented in the Edinburgh Review, the Tory position in the Quarterly Review and Blackwood's, and the radical reformist position in the Westminster Review, but the Athenaeum reviewed new literary and scientific publications from a neutral political standpoint although the journal also recommended social progress through various reforms, m wmtmdins fl” policies presented in th e artist and their ”a eighteenth century bears mention, the ”files dude and (530551” ' em in (hatter 0“ ‘ lhe second Chapte fimtion of the first Licridge‘s death in 18 h periodicals and the azadards. During the ""1 add several editi Enema reflect the iasital standards on Jim to those deriv Mtie triters. But Pl‘itital and personal The third that)te fitting Coleridge's iitieal neglect that idiferent aspects ‘ {iii ‘ I «dgt 5 death, er .‘qul A A. 1«Lions of Cole Because understanding the kinds of critical essays and reviewing policies presented in these journals as well as their attitude toward the artist and their readership in the development of culture in the nineteenth century bears directly on this study of Coleridge's critical reception, the profiles of these journals follow the definition of culture and discussion of the role of the artist in the nineteenth century in Chapter One of this study. The second chapter of this study encompasses the period from the formation of the first periodical, Th_e Edinburgh Review, in 1802 until Coleridge's death in 1834. This span of time includes the birth of all the periodicals and their initial statements of purpose and critical standards. During the same era Coleridge published his major prose works and several editions of his poetry. And critical standards of this period reflect the tendency to redirect criticism from the Neo— classical standards prevalent at the beginning of the nineteenth century to those derived from or at least more in sympathy with the romantic writers. But the reviewers' opinions reflect predominantly political and personal biases. The third chapter of the study begins in 1835 with the criticism following Coleridge's death and extends to 1869, through the period of critical neglect that ended with the beginning of a new wave of interest in different aspects of Coleridge's life and work in 1870. After Coleridge's death, critical centers of interest formed around recollections of Coleridge by close associates, particularly Joseph httle aid 1'95 mum“ hrhiorth in 1343 and 1' dsmsim 0f 6°19 ridge : herrioh, the “in“ reflections °f the to“ he sane interest in the hhhehhsions of ”lad hhtidge. But the Peri :hhhe reknm as a P“ we in niendge 94 his this Peri0d the ‘ hinted biases becaus' ishlete, and he had at it the first real 9f hides and literary C Brief reviews of E continued interESt Filled little or no I Iiléridge's poems and ‘: “1'1 the prose and bio e-iitnas extended, h "Estate criticism The fourth chapt Review publi‘ Cottle and James Gillman. The deaths of Robert Southey and William Wordsworth in 1843 and 1850 respectively also motivated critical discussion of Coleridge in relation to them. During the early part of this period, the critical orientation was often based on personal recollections of the romantic poets. In the later part of the period the same interest in the authors' lives was reflected more distantly in discussions of relationships among Southey, Wordsworth, Lamb, and Coleridge. But the period between 1834 and 1870, when Tennyson came to wide reknown as a poet, was marked by a steady decline in critical interest in Coleridge except for occasional references or comparisons. But in this period the criticism no longer had strong personal or political biases because Coleridge's political views had become obsolete, and he had attained distinction as a poet. And this period marks the first real efforts to understand Coleridge's metaphysical theories and literary criticism. Brief reviews of new editions of Coleridge's writing indicated some continued interest in him, but new editions of his works often prompted little or no critical comment. Textual studies of some of Coleridge's poems and plays did not generate proportionate interest with the prose and biography. Coleridge's position as a literary critic was extended, however, with further recognition of his Shakespeare criticism and the increasing collection of his marginalia. The fourth chapter includes the period from 1870 until the Edinburgh Review published its centennial edition in 1902. Biographies hhendze. “‘5 ”m m edition of .111 says of this pedal fill an assessnents 0f we! niihited interest in 5' Emma, and attENptE Uiginal editions 0f C0: Nations of Coleridg‘ oftiscussions of his 1 mg this periOd were firsts as they were heiiscussion of Coler is: around personal I Ciletidge's relationshi “it on Which it was l 3 the chronology of at issue. Althouth discuss hi" all the old per td to discussion eur- uh. "" i":~.~ W cotr es ‘ pondenee ‘ 3 life and t 6. of Coleridge, new books of his letters and notebook fragments, and the centennial edition of Lyrical Ballads were the basis for familiar essays of this period when periodical magazine critics expressed their own assessments of Coleridge's life and work. After 1870 critics exhibited interest in specific textual questions, new discoveries of marginalia, and attempts to answer questions about the publication of original editions of Coleridge's work during his lifetime. Critical evaluations of Coleridge's poetry and prose were set in the framework of discussions of his life, and fragments of his works published during this period were also dominated by this emphasis on the order of events as they were chronicled in his lifetime. Thus, whereas the discussion of Coleridge's life just after his death had revolved first around personal recollections and then around attempts to explain Coleridge's relationships with his contemporaries, the criticism and works on which it was based after 1870 tended to be organized according to the chronology of events in his life with departures to criticize his works. Although discussions of Coleridge's life in long familiar essays opened all the old personal charges, shorter articles were generally confined to discussions of specific questions about Coleridge's life or work. The Athenaeum led in this type of scholarly discussion. And instead of an anonymous and imperial critical stance, as was still frequent in Review essays, in the Athenaeum scholars contributed Signed correspondence in which they discussed questions about Coleridge's life and work in an open forum. Conclusions wont models Vin be me inclusions will Wide dahich Coleridge “5 E depths were Wide“ ehhe final statement he twentieth cent“? in spite of the ‘1 tntical receptim, 5°” mired year peri°dv ' the the kinds of Q“ \ surrey of ColeridE :nthitioh that althoug t various political hhhhh esilently, politics. '17,‘ I t-ers receptiOn 0 Conclusions about Coleridge's reputation in nineteenth century periodicals will be reserved for the last chapter of the study. These conclusions will consider the changes in critical standards by means of which Coleridge was evaluated, what asPects of Coleridge's life and works were considered at various times, the conclusions reached, and the final statement of Coleridge's reputation at the beginning of the twentieth century. In spite of the distinctive features of each period in Coleridge's critical reception, some issues were prevalent during the entire hundred year period. Therefore, the duration of critical inquiries as well as the kinds of questions asked are relevant to this study. And this survey of Coleridge's critical reception will support the contention that although critics approached Coleridge's life and work from various political and social reform stances, they used similar underlying codes of individual morality and literary standards. Consequently, political persuasions had less overall influence on the reviewers' reception of Coleridge's life and writing than their literary tastes and beliefs regarding individual morality. Different critical questions were raised at various times, but the fact that most essays were based on comparatively recently published books by or about Coleridge assured some similarity of subject matter in the reviews. Therefore, although the difference in the overall tone of the articles might be determined by the journal's political position, similar literary standards and moral codes produced similar judgments and aiieved steadily more 11 ‘, mad Coleridge's polit: 1: diettive evaluations of _ -A.fl-—r‘r‘“’— achievedsteadily more importance ‘ as reviewers became more impartial toward Coleridge's politics and personality: andattempted more objective evaluations of his life and work. m1 Tail“ “1‘ periodicals altered duri gimging roles of ti legislators for the 0‘11? herefore, in order to ‘ lterary reputation in :t'erstand the nature 0 fears that differenti 21:5, their political ignites were intendet Because the polit Rte shaped in relatior 1:: tdtural develop: ~=21rst part of this silgti on of culture aiestription of the e Erasing numbers acc litizdeals. Ihe sect .Ileridge in relation iii: readers. The t'r «are and the hat Chapter I Introduction Samuel Taylor Coleridge's critical reception in five British periodicals altered during the nineteenth century in response to the changing roles of these magazines as representatives of and legislators for the culture and literary tastes of their readers. Therefore, in order to understand the development of Coleridge's literary reputation in the nineteenth century, it is necessary to understand the nature of the journals themselves. Three important factors that differentiate these periodicals are their critical biases, their political biases, and the readership for which the magazines were intended. Because the political and critical biases of the publications were shaped in relation to their role as guides to upper and middle class cultural development, the growth of the middle class contri— butes to the explanation of periodical reviewing policies. Therefore, the first part of this chapter contains the evolving and expanding definition of culture that emerged during the nineteenth century and a description of the evolution of the middle class audience whose increasing numbers accepted the cultural goals represented in these Periodicals. The second part suggests the role of artists like Coleridge in relation to the cultural goals of the periodicals and their readers. The third part describes the development of periodical literature and the nature of nineteenth century reviews and magazines. l | ! he forth Pm Mew apolitical Mater tall as their readeF impart °f this Chap of the Pa?“ and the la tColerldze's Pm‘r” L111 The nging midi Erection for leading 1 legal nth the abdicat tied the end of divi cation of a constitu Er: signalled the beg itinerary and of the fiddle 1 1 - - cass. lhis ] Limited nth the (let ““53ng Class coast “if increased, this ‘:;'e59iltati()ll and so lRo‘ ' 11% <1 h. horton \l lhou ht ‘ ~J‘}) NFL, 110 1 Rimmdhilli' virgin, ( . Press, 193 The fourth part indicates the development of the individual literary and political characteristics of the five journals during thecentury as well as their readership insofar as .it can be ascertained. The fifth part of this chapter suggests the organization of the remainder of the paper and the major themes that recur in the critical reception of Coleridge's poetry, prose, and biography in the nineteenth century. E2 the Culture 3133: 51$ Middle gig The growing middle class which provided the source of income and direction for leading periodicals in the nineteenth century actually began with the abdication of the last Stuart king in 1688. This event marked the end of divine right rule in England. The subsequent adoption of a constitutional monarchy with its cabinet form of govern- ment signalled the beginning both of the decline in power of the aristocracy and of the rise to power of the commercial and professional middle class.1 This increase and strengthening of the middle class coincided with the development of individualism and was marked by an increasing class consciousness in British society. As middle class power increased, this group also manifested a desire for more political representation and social recognition.2 English society had always lRod W. Horton and Herbert W. Edwards, §§c_k_gr_ou_ngi_§ 2; American Literary Thought, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, 1967), p. 77. 2Raymond Williams, Culture and Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), p. xiv. lO. beaconsmlcted on a 8' datvas meme“ '7 d amusing “”131 5m mtnal Revolution P ihe mid“!e class meat faith in man's aids to raise the “1“ died. Iherefore, fl erosion and redefinil stern "culture" had nib: analogy, a pro is retained, further :e to mean a thing i in the general state exhale. And as the c i: a social applicatic 15 he arts. As the < ~=l1ltion to mean a r l r“- . :. “r u. "‘ . «\JQ1| iflls broadened iiis' - - wolrtrcal and ‘“ Lem evolved i *‘s‘i tul‘ one was reg 1:7. "\llliams p 11. been constructed on a system of ranks, but the new concept of classes that was vitalized by the developing middle class further emphasized the changing social structure and attitudes of British society as the Industrial Revolution progressed. The middle class bid for social recognition was accompanied by a great faith in man's capacity for cultural improvement and in his ability to raise the moral and social level of the individual and society. Therefore, the concept of culture underwent corresponding extension and redefinition in the nineteenth century. Before 1800 the term "culture" had meant 'the tending of natural growth' of plants and, by analogy, a process of human training. While this definition was retained, further dimensions of meaning were added as culture came to mean a thing in itself: first a state or habit of mind, then the general state of intellectual development in the society as a whole. And as the concept of culture was revised from an individual to a social application, culture also came to mean the general body of the arts. As the century progressed, then, culture expanded in definition to mean a whole way of life——material, intellectual, and spiritual.1 This broadened definition of culture was achieved as a response to new political and social developments in society, and the meaning of the term evolved in two related directions. First, in an external sense culture was regarded as a complex and radical reSponse to the lWilliams, p . xviii. uptoblm °f “cm c WE, the changing ,3, identified a ser>ara uprovidfid a hmori mars. In this mental practice of art. Cultul this and Wm“ h‘ d utilitarian social 3" drenative for then. need to mechanism, t Filo as a source of their factor in soci hsitive value controll :w‘ . «new ., Eventually) ‘ thuously) came to ' :rh society. EVE“ 55. Coleridge propose ii‘icared to the prese lilac? this class the he concept of r lticted scale of valr '33 of society was ‘3ng 800d in it 1". ‘mn ‘ 3118 3 p. 6 12. new problems of social class; second, as a personal and private experience, the changing influence of culture promoted a habit of mind that identified a separate body of moral and intellectual activities and provided a framework for their evaluation outside practical social matters. In this mental identity culture affected the meaning and practice of art. Cultural activities provided a set of values for judging and improving human nature that were raised above the processes of utilitarian social judgment to establish a mitigating and rallying alternative for them. Culture, then, offered a superior social ideal opposed to mechanism, the amassing of fortunes, and the preposition of utility as a source of value. In this capacity culture became an explicit factor in society, and the recognition of its existence as a positive value controlled many inquiries into the institutions of society. Eventually, cultivation or culture (the two terms were used synonymously) came to be regarded as the highest observable state of man in society. Even in the early part of the nineteenth century S.T. Coleridge proposed to endow a class within the state to be dedicated to the preservation and extension of cultivation. Coleridge called this class the Clerisy or National Church.1 The concept of culture as a personal, intellectual, and morally directed scale of values set against the utilitarian and mechanistic Values of society was regarded as a social influence to be cultivated as a thing good in itself and as a quality to be inculcated in the lWilliams , p. 63. 0 mg Iiddle “1385' C rituals that aphasize , udpiblic reform of t ‘l ,Rncupatim with hula I did critics re-evalua nCial contributions t' hteflry critic. Cultl dart, artists, and tr ailmléd to purveh' Cm . a utilitarian soda Colerid ' Celina Val in the understan ir- iajor periodicals Ifmereenth century First, a major change tisz‘s role in it va Enter and his rea dependent creative i Qiif rule; fourth, bi5395 Jhaginative ti k,‘.‘:: ' a increasinglv i l3. rising middle class. Consequently, the middle class culture was based on goals that emphasized the improvement of the society both in moral and public reforms of the individual and the group. And this preoccupation with human improvement affected the perspective from which critics re-evaluated S.T. Coleridge's personal, political, and social contributions to the society as well as his roles as poet and literary critic. Culture as a social value, then, affected the concept of art, artists, and the criticism of their works in periodicals that attempted to purvey culture within the upper and middle class readership in a utilitarian society. Part Two Coleridge and His Art Er Relation t_o the Cultural Values o_f_ Nineteenth Centug Periodicals In the understanding of Coleridge's critical reception in the five major periodicals, representing as they did the cultural framework of nineteenth century British society, several factors are involved. First, a major change in the attitude toward the society and the artist's role in it was taking place; second, the relationship between the writer and his readers was changing; third, the idea of the independent creative writer, the autonomous genius, was becoming a kind of rule; fourth, a theory of the superior reality of art as the seat of imaginative truth was emphasized; and fifth, the creation of art was increasingly regarded as one of a number of specialized kinds elimination subject ' Wm} me changing roll of all, in the changin! exiressefl in the pet” Jeffrey of the Ml msillithetic Ward t: tuition to poetic d Coleridge and his “mt utaporary critics t Scott aid Robert South pathetic My ‘ézrice‘s and John Ste Jon Wilson's excessii lihlosring's utiliti Cileridge's eulogistii fitical tide toward 1 {though similar appri These various i “miss remaining n 1518 criticism influe “ridge, Hazlitt, 1 Pen ~ - 0Clinical prefe 1:». “Illimns, n ’ 14. of production subject to much the same conditions as general production.1 The changing role of the artist in society is reflected, first of all, in the changing critical attitude toward S.T. Coleridge expressed in the periodicals. Early nineteenth century critics like Jeffrey of the Edinburgh Review adhered to poetic standards that were unsympathetic toward the various poetic forms, low subject matter, and opposition to poetic diction of early nineteenth century poets. But Coleridge and his contemporaries develoPed a school of more appreciative contemporary critics that began having increasing influence when Walter Scott and Robert Southey helped introduce the politically and poetically sympathetic Quarterly Review in 1809. Following that, Frederick Denison Maurice's and John Sterling's sympathetic criticism in the Athenaeum, John Wilson's excessive flattery in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, JduiBowring's utilitarian praise in the Westminster Review, and H.N. Coleridge‘s eulogistic review in the Quarterly Review helped turn the critical tide toward positive appreciation of S.T. Coleridge's poetry, although similar appreciation of his prose came more slowly. These various individual criticisms gradually helped to overcome or revise remaining neo—classical standards of poetry so that even by 1828 criticism influenced by Wordsworth, and more particularly Coleridge, Hazlitt, Lamb, DeQuincey, and Leigh Hunt prevailed over pseudoclassical preferences for the classical virtues of correctness, lWilliams , p. 32. l. r l with and the “Gram mum what they (let writers.1 W wk his which have their mature. 1“ this excellence.2 A Preval state of literature Vi were believed to fund tube broken (1115’ t° a hithe beauty of lite trhe judged by publi‘ Rith the desire fiddle class, the cm iighteenth century to wits stressed hora Winged if they ex fighation Without t Tistoriah critics, ha :1" u- rhe internal sens ‘ leslieA. Marc 4$(Chapellhll “$903158 33.3 Mac; >3 (June 1831 )‘hreharrd, p, , “Khalid p 15. dignity, and the "Grand Style." Occasionally, however, critics continued to praise what they declared to be classical virtues in primarily romantic writers.l For example, Macaulay defended correctness as conforming to rules which have their foundation in truth and in the principles of hrman nature. In this case correctness came to be another name for excellence.2 A prevalent critical approach was to contrast the actual state of literature with what it was supposed to be.3 Rules of taste were believed to function as a means to ultimate perfection and were to be broken only to advance the claims of genius, to obtain new beauty. And the beauty of literature, according to this theory, ultimately had to be judged by public opinion. With the desire to improve the cultural and social values of the middle class, the common enemy changed from reason or science in the eighteenth century to materialism in the nineteenth century.4 Because critics stressed moral knowledge and improvement, artists were challenged if they excessively emphasized either materialisrn or imagination without the restraint of reason. And "reason," for Victorian critics, had a connotation of experience resting ultimately in the "internal sense." This meant that critics believed intuition Culture (Chapel Hill, N.C., The University of North Carolina Press, 1941), p. 232. 2Thomas B. Macaulay, "Moore's Iii g m," M Review, Volume 53 (June, 1831), p. 353. 3'Marchand, p. 240. AMarchand, p. 241. and reason Vere “at can humming" m rep! m." critics °bje authority from the rule believed reason was the tasks of indiVidual 1“ In the @810me recombined with 618‘“ aide desire for cult] imion of the ideas 0 tithe Victorian moVem :tticularly Fredel'iCk menial to serious, thinning evolution 0 fiesers' attitudes t int Coleridge receive lfethe lessened bees 2{ire Coleridge's in1 hiected to his appare Eiéhretation of li: shred that intuiti‘ .1:“ ‘ \ ‘0 Individual us 1 i .F. . D. Maurice, l6. and reason were not contradictory and other writers like Kant employed "understanding" to represent what the eighteenth century had called "reason." Critics objected to the older rationalism that derived its authority from the rules of the eighteenth century. Instead, they believed reason was the right employment of the creative mind in tasks of individual improvement and social progress. In the development of these critical attitudes German idealism was combined with eighteenth century rationalism under a common banner of the desire for cultural advancement. And Coleridge led the intro- duction of the ideas of the German writers who were the early prophets of the Victorian movement in England. Then Coleridge's disciples, particularly Frederick Denison Maurice, stated the theory in a manner congenial to serious, intelligent middle class readers.l But the continuing evolution of these critical wiews produced changes in the reviewers' attitudes toward Coleridge's life and work. The Support that Coleridge received from critics during and immediately after his lifetime lessened because although the Victorian critics continued to admire Coleridge's intensity and individuality, they increasingly objected to his apparent self—absorption and failure to make an "interpretation of life" a chief poetic concern. Carlyle, for example, insisted that intuitional knowledge should be applied to social rather than to individual uses. lean. Maurice, Athenaeum, No. 23 (April 11, 1828), p. 351. Atonclusion ab0“ cities to be a “dug oinatural beauty was ‘ tithewhole, unified : theartist's T016 in s‘ dept of culture in hand(latent-11m”-r °f t were read in literary satiallY orieuted Vic! hnvidual artistic t1 inattenth century “1‘ mhols of their P0“ Spiritual or soCia1 V 10:, the sriters, or he tutrts' eyes 1 in his poetry and l cizitisn and then, ‘ Stud and literary Changing criti li‘aheled a change 15% society. A sec< Qliheteehth centr Q‘u‘th his reade 2:33“. «is: at the be 17. A conclusion about personal feeling came to be expected by critics to be a conclusion about society as well; and an observation of natural beauty was expected to carry a necessary moral reference to the whole, unified life of man. In this manner, the extension of the artist's role in society came to be related to the extended concept of culture in society. The artist was expected to be a leader in and determiner of that culture. Therefore, social connotations were read in literary works, and the gap steadily widened between socially oriented Victorian critics and the effort to express individual artistic truth in Coleridge's poetry. Thus, early nineteenth century writers like Coleridge came to have the concrete symbols of their poetry recognized as expressions of more general spiritual or social values if such interpretations could be made; if not, the writers, or at least some of their works, lost stature in the critics' eyes. In Coleridge's case the critics' interest shifted from his poetry and politics to his religion, philosophy, and literary criticism and then, toward the end of the nineteenth century, to the secial and literary contribution of his total life and work. Changing critical attitudes toward writers like Coleridge paralleled a change in the artist's own understanding of his role in the society. A second important aspect of the concept of culture in the nineteenth century is the artist's understanding of his relation- ship with his readers. This relationship altered as unsympathetic criticism at the beginning of the century forced writers either to bow ”the W of the 11 me understanding a“ m, bowing t" a '85 merit? 001911189 new“? fan. and he a future “We nierstmding denied b: bathe a standard set relationship with sod hid both writers and Culture» the 'e“ standard 0i exci progress of the which real valu' opposition t0 t1 the market and In the more Of Iterature in 9P“ a: inarahle to those < imitation of new no: ifstshdards for ide Ted, future reader isthgnished betyee ‘Tithg, generally i Elixirs were expect. matted their Stan ly- . hilllams, p. 18. to the demands of the increasing middle class literary market or to seek a more understanding audience elsewhere. Neither writers nor critics favored bowing to a mass audience toward which both groups felt a superiority. Coleridge frequently avowed his lack of concern for contemporary fame, and critics throughout the century expressed faith that a future audience would give Coleridge's works the sympathetic understanding denied by contemporary readers. Thus, the ideal audience became a standard set above the clamour of the writer's actual relationship with society, and culture became an ideal standard to which both writers and critics could appeal. Culture, the 'embodied spirit of a People,‘ the true standard of excellence, became available, in the progress of the century, as the court of appeal in which real values were determined, usually in Opposition to the 'factitious' values thrown up by the market and similar Operations of society.1 In the name of culture, critics and reviewers searched for great literature in epic and dramatic forms although current works were not comparable to those of Homer or Milton. But standards suitable for the evaluation of new modes of literature slowly emerged through a dual set 0f standards for ideal and real literature. As writers longed for the ideal, future readers who would understand their works, critics distinguished between contemporary literature and their ideal of writing, generally based on writings of the past which contemporary authors were expected to emulate and Surpass but not imitate. Critics asserted their standards of what an ideal work of literary art ought lWilliams, p. 34. tobe before the? me E artists seardled fo Rims with the we'll but the P100355 of sea of that 300‘] 1mm" hth these 10“? was stalked by a tone ‘ dictatorial note of a‘ ”the saw themselves a tlebarharic hordes 0 thsidered literature are seldom realized, praising the particu] hits shortcomings 1 toicept of what such fell short of an idet other category. C itectice of bemoanin “dung on the othe I“: : “hit. 19. to be before they attempted to assess what was actually being written. As artists searched for ideal readers, critics searched for ideal writers with the result that neither found what they were looking for, but the process of searching forced both groups to explore questions of what good literature ought to be. With these lofty standards the periodical criticism of the time was marked by a tone of "high seriousness" that partly explains the dictatorial note of authority in writers of the quarterly reviews 'hmo saw themselves as guardians of the gates of literature against the barbaric hordes of triflers who could not 'see true' and who considered literature as a pastime."l And because the lofty standards were seldom realized, literary essays frequently begin with comments praising the particular work being discussed and end with an analysis of its shortcomings from the standpoint of the critic's idealized concept of what such literature ought to be, or by showing how the work fell short of an ideal genre and then giving it qualified approval in another category. Critics did not see any inconsistency in the practice of bemoaning on the one hand the low state of literature, and praising on the other hand the mediocre talent which then presented itself. It was not uncommon to hold up the giants of the past as examples of the greatness to be emulated by those who must avoid following the rules laid down by these masters. The minds of the critics looked to the future when the creative imagination, aided by reason and all modern "improvements" in science and philosophic thinking, lMarchand, p. 237. _;_;:;__. l | l. V l would produce a 7 wral -socia1 inf, they could pictu Ihe best literat noting that would Wt hirdpoint relevant ' u; critics turned to tactical artistic gOJ torches increasing no to "imaginative social activity.2 A there is the indepe Emscciety and incr to tire to think of he idea of ham per Echecme the artist t-s‘ctllQleS of the as HM 20. would produce a great literature which would have a vital moral—social influence on the lives of contemporaries, but they could picture it only in forms long established.1 The best literature, then, was supposed to have a transcendent meaning that would not just serve to amuse the current fancy. And a third point relevant to the developing concept of culture is that while the critics turned to broader social expectations in art as their practical artistic goals altered in Spite of their ideals, the artists themselves increasingly conceptualized the art activity as an individual means to "imaginative truth," an isolated experience rather than a social activity.2 A fourth element in the developing concept of culture is the independent Spirit of the artist, increasingly withdrawn from society and increasingly regarding himself as an autonomous genius, who came to think of the work of art as a practicable mode of access to the idea of human perfection. This concept of art and the artist was to become the artist's center of defense against the disintegrating tendencies of the age.3 As the Victorian critics emphasized the social role of art and the artist to form the cultural values of society, art also came to be regarded by critics and artists as a symbolic abstraction for a whole range of human experience. At the same time that the social implications of art and the artist led critics to give the artists primary roles as legislators of lMarchand, p. 243. 2Williams, p. 36. 3Williams, p. 42. taste and cult“re for role of the artist 735 art as a 51’er f conditions as other f0 the artistic Radial artist's self'Pleadini sold to the middle d; critical demnds for ' Emmett 0f the an increasingly difficul :‘u'll be Part °f the “attic Values was E avatually Placed his tale and the Gemi In the early I: mfidence accompani' tiiVidual adjusme“ irtdmrth and C01er Intribution to the SE‘irits. Each artis ii gave direction t 1% artis t contempl; lttutams p 21. taste and culture for the society, a fifth influence on the cultural role of the artist was the increasing demandcf the literary market for art as a Specialized form of production subject to much the same conditions as other forms of production. This development paralleled the artistic reaction whereby works of art became symbols of the artist's self-pleading ideology.l Commercial demands for art to be sold to the middle class market, art for entertainment, conflicted with critical demands for an ideal social art, art for moral and social improvement of the audience. Therefore, creative artists found it increasingly difficult to maintain their individual identities and still be part of the society. This separation of critical and artistic values was well under way during Coleridge's lifetime and eventually placed his writing in opposition to critical standards that he and the German idealists had helped initiate. In the early nineteenth century a spirit of optimism and self- confidence accompanied the expression of personal feelings and individual adjustment to life within the poets' claim to truth. Wordsworth and Coleridge had a sense of making an individual artistic contribution to the society, and they wrote as ardent and imaginative Spirits. Each artist cultivated a system of principles that shaped and gave direction to his particular thought. These principles helped the artist contemplate humanity as a force capable of growth toward lWilliams , p. 47. Wei-ion» and they in . l {m self'exllresslm. Artists like 0°“ P°litica1 and social i5 odpersml feeling- am'sts steadily less dmmstances and 033i“ which they had t° c Coleridge continuall}7 month the landscal ~itdsorth were coupal :uid become either t? imugh which to see titude provided a b fiemhasized the int Piezs‘ thought. his separatior the critics who a initials) concept If truth or a guide iiiteeuth century. CE Lyrical Ba V \ llaos V.\ 1M. k Routh, “43h Co ' 1393113} 22. perfection, and they indicated the forms in which his vitality could find self-expression.l Artists like Coleridge and Wordsworth were deeply interested in political and social issues as well as the spheres of natural beauty and personal feeling. But their independent principles made such artists steadily less compatible with the uncongenial atmosphere of circumstances and opinions that surrounded them, with the government to which they had to conform (even in his late, conservative years, Coleridge continually advocated reforms in church and state) and even with the landscape they wished to enjoy. But Coleridge and Wordsworth were compatible with the promise of what these things could become either through progress in this world or as transparencies through which to see another world beyond it. This transcendental attitude provided a basis for later social interpretations as critics de—emphasized the individualism and otherworldly direction of the poets' thought. This separation of the artist's and society's (as represented by the critics who acted as authorities for the readership of the periodicals) concept of the art experience as an individual expression of truth or a guide to truth for the society was not new in the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, works like Wordsworth's Preface to the Lyrical Ballads extended the artist's criticism of the new kinds lH.V. Routh, Towards the Twentieth Century (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 4. of still “latimhip Inlet. taste would be that art is We than active relationship a! But instead 0f findim society continued to mistic experience! than the W0 and 5 tot artists for theil To understand 1 a: the very time V’flP—l hgislators of cultu Inlet that replaced Recalled until the hiependent publicai By the begin gatronage had alIEE no the kind of g6 U{Entieth cento ““5 Without ha\,~ locum, p 23. of social relationships of art. If are were only a commodity in the market, taste would be an adequate guide; but Wordsworth suggests that art is more than a market commodity; and, therefore, a more active relationship among art, the artist, and society is essential. But instead of finding a satisfactory relationship, the artist and society continued to grow further apart in their values of the artistic experience, and the periodicals became the legislators between the two and asserted the value of particular literary works and artists for their readership to accept. To understand the isolation of literary artists from the society at the very time when they were expected to maintain strong roles as legislators of culture, it is necessary to understand the literary market that replaced the system of aristocratic patronage which had prevailed until the middle class grew strong enough to support independent publications. Pat—Hm Background 9f_Nineteenth Centugy gegigdigals By the beginning of the nineteenth century the system of liteary patronage had already passed into subscription publishing and then into the kind of general commercial publishing that has continued in the twentieth century. Writers achieved independence and social status without having to be supported by an aristocratic patron; but lWilliams , p. 39. thence caster: no 1a m uterary ”mt dissatisfaction Vim I furthered their retre stepped into the ”R lithe society by act Molt taste in 1i" of human perfectm' disbelief in man he arts. 55 arbitr‘ considered hooks eit‘ uh‘terary action 0 The history of to B30 has been abl here only in terms C Egazines that culin" L512 and then the or hoarse although tho iitoty, scholars o 5151 a transfomati et Ioondation of t hilliams, p i . ‘8? int: Phonon, \Iy riticisn 24. the new master, no less difficult to please, was the increasing middle class literary market that developed. Writers expressed more and more dissatisfaction with public literary values, and this dissatisfaction furthered their retreat from society.1 Nineteenth century periodicals stepped into the role of authorities setting the standards of culture in the society by acting as guides and legislators to direct the popular taste in literature, morals, and politics toward higher levels of human perfection. The reviewers associated the idea of culture with this belief in human perfectability through the practice and study of the arts. As arbitrators between the artists and the public, critics considered books either as commodities to be reviewed or as literature or literary action or behavior to be criticized.2 The history of English periodical literature from its beginnings to 1930 has been ably described by Walter Graham and will be considered here only in terms of the development of periodical reviews and magazines that culminated in the foundation of the Edinburgh Review in 1802 and then the other four periodicals. This division is feasible because although the periodical tradition is very long in English history, scholars of British periodical literature generally concede that a transformation to a new era of such publications is marked by the foundation of the Edinburgh Review. lWilliams , p. 39. 28.E. Hyman, The Armed Vision A Study 31. the Methods B: Modern £265er Criticism (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), p. 9. By the begin-11 serial cmposed Of a existed as a (113th. the review devel°l>ed W} Although periodical literat‘“ for the develmnt the nest influential 1300. The nineteentI of the same type in connatively free is never before by of new books had be through ownership 0 class readership one reviewed on the has Ship rather than it no - ishers' lnflue r Grah ‘ al Aim; n3h ons,l te d3 2 G Iahan, p. 25. By the beginning of the nineteenth century the review, i.e. a serial composed of articles purporting to be criticisms of books, existed as a distinct periodical type beside the more common magazine. The review developed from the abstract serial of the seventeenth century.1 Although much literary criticism also developed apart from periodical literature, the review was by far the most important agent for the development of literary criticism in England before 1800 and the most influential vehicle of criticism for several decades after 1800. The nineteenth century review differed from earlier periodicals of the same type in two primary ways. Although the review was comparatively free from the booksellers' influence, it was affected as never before by political partisanship.2 Previously, publishers of new books had been able to control the reviews of these books through ownership of the periodicals. But the growth of the middle class readership made possible an independent publication that reviewed on the basis of its own authority as a guide for the reader— ship rather than in support of the book seller. Therefore, the new Edinburgh, Quarterly, and Westminster Reviews, the monthly Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, and the weekly Athenaeum were less under direct publishers' influence than their predecessors; but these periodicals, lWalter Graham, English Literagy Periodicals (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1930), p. 225. 2Graham, p. 227. in the exwptim 0f molar P°mical inertal reviews that Position rather than covenat like the adj individual views €XP7 ndpolitics the Per infidlihility that V that attempted signe medal pontificati of authority based C ruinous and inperi phonological, polit fienheteenth cento Signed review appea‘ ‘see five journals The financial reflected in sceadi attracted increasin Cesium, the 5 dependent literai T:‘I‘lllit politica.’ Kilian» ‘ eh, then, 26. with the exception of the Athenaeum, were clearly advocates of particular political positions maintained through the anonymous and imperial reviews that were intended to reflect the journal's political position rather than expressing the reviewer‘s personal opinions, somewhat like the editorial of a modern daily neWSpaper instead of the individual views expressed by modern critics. In literary criticism and politics the periodicals conveyed a sense of anonymous and lofty infallibility that was acceptable and impressive to readers. Magazines that attempted signed articles were rejected in preference for the imperial pontification by which critics assumed an all-knowing stance of authority based on weighed and deliberate judgment. Behind the anonymous and imperial "we" critics could disguise a wealth of psychological, political, and social biases. Only toward the end of the nineteenth century did periodicals have signed reviews. Only one signed review appears in the Westminster Review in the 18903 among these five journals. The financial success and literary authority of the journals was reflected in steadily higher pay for articles, a circumstance that attracted increasingly able and more socially respected writers. Consequently, the social status of reviewers improved; and more independent literary criticism gradually supplanted the biased and vitriolic political attacks that characterized the earlier reviews. Eventually, then, distinguished contributors elevated the review to l l aPOSition 0f foraosl at dignity.1 As the three “a and W W dignity, the monthly iportanee. Before t tobe a repository fr he magazine proper, ot' the eighteenth cc] of information refle V: n 2 ' avenue. lhe pen :egazine developed a htiodital of the t? at Sheet Johnson‘s Emulation. The en agtneral magazine r tfinent in the fon Hates, feature at Cur10115; infomatio 13% tine, news mat “E periodicals the than ' \E Ma azine 1J 2.- Ohm Clive <35?“ ’ «hlty PIESS, 7 . ChvE’ p. 1 27. a position of foremost literary importance in influence, independence, and dignity.1 As the three major quarterly reviews, the Edinburgh, Quarterly, and Westminster Reviews, gave periodical literature distinction and dignity, the monthly and weekly magazines also assumed greater importance. Before the nineteenth century a magazine was considered to be a repository for collections of information of various kinds. The magazine proper, according to Walter Graham, is really a carryover of the eighteenth century monthly miscellany rather than the repository of information reflected in such journals as Edward Cave's Gentleman's Magazine.2 The periodical literary miscellany identified as a magazine developed at the same time that the popular single essay periodical of the type made famous by Addison and Steele's Spectator and Samuel Johnson's Rambler steadily declined in influence and circulation. The monthly miscellany was well established by 1710 as a general magazine which includes instructive or moral essays; enter— tahmmnt in the form of poetry, fiction, epigrams, riddles; biographical notices, feature articles on scientific subjects of interest to the curious; information on a variety of the world's affairs; and, for a long time, news matter. These miscellaneous elements were common in the periodicals that came to be known as magazines. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine displayed many of the characteristics of the 1John Clive, Scotch Reviewers 1802—1815 (Cambridgei Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 140. 2Clive, p. 142. mum “game narrowed t° rem a hitlication Of Origin advertising and Sm subject matter t0 lit While these fi' role as legislators 1 my individual char: their readership tha‘ part they Played in m Besides the PC elationship t0 the Literary criticism, haten’feet S.T. Co fame of the nagaz .: toieridge in eat The introduet ii its e ' nsmng Uh: 331w entail): donina 28. conventional magazine in its early years, but its emphasis gradually narrowed to reviews and original essays on literature as well as the publication of original pieces of literature. The Athenaeum included advertising and some announcements of cultural events but limited its subject matter to literature and science. While these five periodicals had a common attitude toward their role as legislators for middle class culture and taste, they exhibited many individual characteristics in literary criticism, politics, and their readership that should be noted separately to understand the part they played in Coleridge's critical reception. Ear—timer. Individual Characteristics 9f the Five Periodicals Besides the political orientation of the five journals in their relationship to the middle class readership and their attitude toward literary criticism, the individual characteristics of the publications that affect S.T. Coleridge's critical reception are: the general format of the magazines, the readership, and the pattern of reviews of Coleridge in each of the journals. A. The Edinburgh Review The introduction of Francis Jeffrey's Edinburgh Review in 1802 and its ensuing Whig orientation mark the beginning of the new era of politically dominated periodical journalism. The publication rapidly evened tm mien f0mlla beta! unwell the “my heats along 0th“ ‘I reception in the @ particularly its cfi Although the 2‘ approximately 13,500 readership for the ‘ marine issued 1110rE deed, and no accuri he six shillingS 0‘ ndhany none peepll hrtainly the journ reigned supreme bef he opposing Tory v lhiitations steadi Ciriyie declared ti ehnosed, and inflt The middle e n its tendency to ho arEi leg & lBrit\ain VOlUne hm A-eh" 29. developed tremendous prestige, and its political emphasis and literary review formula became the models for the other two major reviews, although the monthly and weekly magazines developed their literary formats along other lines. To understand Coleridge's critical reception in the Edinburgh Review, this journal's audience and particularly its critical standards must also be understood. Although the Edinburgh Review reached a peak circulation of approximately 13,500 readers in 1818, an accurate tabulation of the l readership for the century cannot be made. For one thing, the magazine issued more than one edition of the same number at various times, and no accurate record of printings or sales was retained. Also, the six shillings cost was prohibitive to the poorer classes of society, and many more people read than actually purchased the Edinburgh Review. Certainly the journal's influence was greatest in the seven years it reigned supreme before the Quarterly Review was founded to represent the opposing Tory viewpoint in 1809. The addition of other rival publications steadily detracted from the readership, and in 1849 Carlyle declared that "At the present the great Review is considerably eclipsed, and influence is quite gone.”2 The middle class orientation of the Edinburgh Review is reflected in its tendency to defend this segment of society while it attacked the lAlvar Ellegard, The WE the Periodical Press 1.2 Mid— Victorian Britain (Goteborg: Gotesborgs UniverSitEteS Arsskrift, 1957), Volume LXII, p. 27. 2D.A. Wilson, ed., The Works 2E Thomas Carlyle (6 vols., London: K. Paul, Trench, Truber, and C0,, Ltd., 1927), IV, p. 121. n l i l landed aristocracy f‘ alack of mral fibn urchmts and moan taste of the middle upper classeS- Edit be achieved by those ten of want and Shj faculties; Presmnab: intended. On one 0‘ hiddling classes." ...ve mean :11: What is calle not aim at di of their equa is far as the the magazine profes seated a sense 1 regress of societj ~3th, is on the hi‘dStry were the bh‘cation was th hild of fashion. 1 . 3130.me Jed 7 ‘C 've hp' 3 . C live, p. 30. landed aristocracy for being backward and the nobility for idleness and a lack of moral fibre. The Review soon ceased its aflacks on the merchants and concentrated its efforts to improve the character and taste of the middle classes against the deSpotic tendencies of the upper classes. Editor Jeffrey suggested that true happiness could only be achieved by those in the middle classes of life who were above the fear of want and still had sufficient motive for the exertion of their faculties; presumably this was the group for whom the publication was intended. On one occasion Jeffrey did define what he meant by the "middling classes." ...we mean almost all those who are below the sphere of what is called fashionable or public life, and who do not aim at distinctions or notoriety beyond the circle of their equals in fortune and situation. As far as the lower classes of society were concerned, although the magazine professed sympathy for the suffering of the poor, it also generated a sense that such suffering was an inevitable part of the progress of society.2 Virtue, according to Edinburgh Review editorial policy, is on the side of the middle classes; and culture, virtue, and industry were the Review's yardsticks for social approbation.3 The implication was that this virtue could conquer even the aristocratic world of fashion. 2801Francis Jeffrey, Edinburgh Review, Vol. 11, November, 1812, P- . 2Clive, p. 138. 3Clive, p. 145. r r __,_.-e- '7 Because the m artistic taste 0f the literary Wm that ' social, and literal? they might privat‘ judged unacceptable ' It was the tag successful 39? was 110 reasan follW his ind there was no I tears 0‘7‘3r Nor condemning anc hudesteflsiOh rowan none and private ‘ hinthlntd tward h learning as Cohhare he more class et as some qualifica h‘v‘l\eu. Certainly Educational level < nuances, quotat: hie in deteminino shed a sense of Political do hn» fines not a n l . Clive, p. l 31. Because the critics believed they were shaping the culture and artistic taste of the middle class, they felt obliged to praise literary works that would give the middle class the preper moral, social, and literary orientation even though critics like Francis Jeffrey might privately prefer contemporary poetry that was publicly judged unacceptable. It was the task of the critic to judge poetry by its successful appeal to universal associations, but there was no reason at all why the critic himself should not follow his individual bent in his personal tastes. Thus there was no real contradiction in Jeffrey's shedding tears over Wordsworth's poems, and at the same time condemning and ridiculing him in the Review. Condescension toward the middle class is mmlied in this separation of public and private critical tastes. And a degree of deference was still maintained toward the upper classes in respect for their culture and learning as compared with the vulgarity and gaucherie of the bourgeois. The middle class ethic might well be taken as the prevalent attitude, with some qualifications, of the educationally aristocratic Edinburgh Review. Certainly the magazine did assume a fairly comprehensive educational level on the part of its readers with the many learned references, quotations in foreign languages, and its claim to a leading role in determining the cultural tastes of the middle class that implied a sense of superiority toward the class being led. Political domination such as the Whig stance in the Edinburgh Review was not a new contribution to periodical journalism. Political lClive, p. 160. parties in “‘1 out o particular Wham that it was diwrmd controlled “games their firm. Karlie hmdently of Pd npuffed" or praised Edi was distinct adapting t° rem been the PoliCy °f 3%, the M tiereas recognitier special diStinctim automatically adds quite negative. The selectiV the other major ‘1“ Etiews included 11 religion, and trat for an essay on a lead on metal 1 in" ' . me as long as 32. parties in and out of power had always hired writers to represent their particular political positions. Nor was the Edinburgh distinctive in that it was divorced from the influence of publishers who had often controlled magazines and the criticism of literary works published by their firms. Earlierperiodicals had also been able to function independently of publishing houses and had protested reviews that "puffed" or praised rather than criticized new books. But the Edinburgh Review was distinctive in its selective reviewing policy. Instead of attempting to review all of the new books that were published,as had been the policy of theearlier and less influential Monthly and Critical Reviews, the Edinburgh reviewed only such books as it chose to notice. Whereas recognition in the other reviews accorded the authors no special distinction, being chosen for review in the Edinburgh automatically added prestige for the author even if the review was quite negative. The selective reviewing tactics of the Edinburgh Review influenced the other major quarterly review formats as well. The subjects of these reviews included not only literature but books about politics, economics, religion, and travel. But these books really were only the occasion for an essay on a particular topic. This familiar essay was often based on several books on a single Subject that were published over a period as long as five years. But the essential information for the article was organized by the essay writer who was free to shape the topic any way he chose and to range freely beyond the scope of the books to express his m 0‘ appIOaCh was used. amtelpflary poet» Greets onward before aseties 0f new hock of Shakespeare criti published quarterly lflpoItaT-lt' Rather, ltd the revie‘ler acl rather than as an e‘ othow they Said it iso included, 11‘“ hailing of a sum it. led attadts W of the nineteenth i sophisticated and t Quality in the per Because of H Editancis Jeffre Eoieridge was more other publication if these five nag at lillian Hazli 33. to express his own opinions on the subject. Often an historical approach was used. In a review of a new edition of a book of odes by a contemporary poet, the history of odes might be traced from the Greeks onward before turning to criticize the contemporary work. Or a series of new books about ShakesPeare might prompt an examination of Shakespeare criticism for the last thirty years. For the reviews, published quarterly but irregularly, timeliness was not considered important. Rather, the emphasis was on the review's lofty assessments. And the reviewer acted as the authority on the subject being discussed rather than as an evaluator of what the authors of the books had to say or how they said it. This second kind of evaluation was occasionally also included, however, particularly if the reviewer objected to the handling of a subject or the author's qualifications for writing about it. And attacks were more frequent than praise in the earlier part of the nineteenth century, although as periodical criticism became more sophisticated and dignified, critics became more willing to acknowledge quality in the performance of contemporary writers. Because of Hazlitt's personal antagonism toward S.T. Coleridge and Francis Jeffrey's willingness to publish such vitriolic criticism, Coleridge was more widely reviewed in the Edinburgh Review than in any other publication during his lifetime. The Edinburgh was the only one of these five magazines to notice his 1816 edition of three poems, and William Hazlitt's comments occasioned Coleridge's attack on Jeffrey i i and contemporary re‘ attack, in tum, an not only in the @ animal—am M the only re M published Entitled "Playhouse After this be ignored by the @ 1835 and 1840 the _'. belated tribute was the review of Tab « \ turd in his feud v Cole ridge's old en intersational pow 311,? occasional me betas rirruallY l ettdies written it tetra, prose, am i the Edinburgh _l 331nm poets, bt ‘Tialaba, the Des e: the attitude Eirlier critical 3:!an , . ‘Sll biased 34. and contemporary reviewing policies in the Biographia Literaria. This attack, in turn, aroused the animosity of reviewers of the Biographia, not only in the Edinburgh Review, but in its new competitor Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine as well. Hazlitt also reviewed Ehg_Statesman's l Eggggl, the only review of it in these five journals; and the Edinburgh published a satirical imitation of Coleridge's poetry entitled "Playhouse Musings." After this burst of antagonistic criticism, Coleridge was ignored by the Edinburgh Review for the remainder of his life. Between 1835 and 1840 the Igbl§_lglk_and Literary Remains were reviewed, and a belated tribute was paid to Coleridge as a poet in conjunction with the review of Egbl§_3§lk. Nonetheless, Francis Jeffrey had the last word in his feud with Coleridge by praising the table talk of Coleridge's old enemy Sir James Mackintosh and attacking Coleridge's conversational powers by comparison. After 1840 Coleridge received only occasional mention, mainly in comparisons with other poets; and he was Virtually ignored for thirty years until the series of biographical studies written in the 18808 occasioned a re-evaluation of Coleridge's poetry, prose, and life in 1885. After that, the centennial edition 0f the Edinburgh Review included a comparison of its evaluations of the romantic poets, beginning with Jeffrey's essay on Robert Southey's "Thalaba, the Destroyer" in the first issue of the magazine in 1802, and the attitude of Edinburgh critics in 1902. Some defenses of earlier critical evaluations are made, but the defenses themselves are Strongly biased. At the beginni: tooilhiggish to attr iuries. But the inc coabined with negati particularly those t ion the rival M When the T017 and Robert Smith? in its aristocratic police was also adC :ngics. However, V blunted if the 2:" the government hiitically reacti liftord, J.T. Cole Slit rehenent ant: Crater opposed the " n eVEn nore c K e K‘M l we. 35. ' At the beginning of its existence, the Edinburgh Review was not too Whiggish to attract contributions by Walter Scott and.other Tories. But the increasingly expressed Whig political perspective combined with negative criticisms of contemporary literary innovations, particularly those of Scott and Southey, encouraged these Tories to form the rival Quarterly Review. B. The Quarterly Review When the Tory Quarterly Review was introduced by Walter Scott and Robert Southey in London in 1809, it rivaled the Edinburgh Review in its aristocratic tone and similar format. A selective reviewing policy was also adopted as a basis for familiar essays on a variety of topics. However, whereas the Whig political orientation of the Edinburgh Review necessitated suggesting that some reforms would be implemented if that party could gain control of government, the Tory Quarterly Review defended the status quo of society and the politics of the government in power. And the Quarterly continued to be politically reactionary not only during the editorships of John Gifford, J.T. Coleridge, and John Lockhart, but throughout the century. Such vehement anti—reformists as Robert Southey and John Wilson Croker opposed the Reform Act of 1832, and the magazine steadily came to an even more conservative position than that of the Tory pargras a whole.1 1"The Centenary of the ‘Quarterly Review,'" QEEEEEElX.3EEE§1, Volume 210, April, 1809, p. 765. The reaction“ with a Progressm z the Tory writers Vh‘ were also the poets day. The M sme pregressive Po out of men And to adopt a reaction writers as Southey, mathies. Although the political organ, ti EVEIEIICE for the State, the aristoc interest) from the 0f the Church of E mity toward Eng] it lover classes those who counten fitted in M mum-l That 31' a hhey reflects 1w alter Gr' 36. The reactionary political stance of the Quarterly Review coincided with a progressive attitude toward contemporary literature because the Tory writers who supported the conservative government in power were also the poets who suggested the major poetic innovations of the day. The Edinburgh Review, on the other hand, was forced to advocate some progressive political reforms because it reflected the Whig party out of power. And this political position also compelled that quarterly to adapt a reactionary taste in literature by attacking such innovating writers as Southey, Coleridge, and Wordsworth because of their Tory sympathies. Although the Tory Quarterly Review was not an official government political organ, the rationale of its criticism is to be found in Tory reverence for the Crown, loyalty to the ancient constitution of the state, the aristocratic principle "the defense of property (the landed interest) from the people,” and fidelity to the apostolical hierarchy of the Church of England. Thus, authors who attacked the king or showed enmity toward England or reSpect for France, or those who encouraged the lower classes of people to seek equality with "their betters," or those who countenanced Dissent or Popery or infidelity were subject to attack in Quarterly criticism. The Tory publication stood for tradition.l That it could accept such former democrats as Robert Southey reflects the conservative turn this poet had taken. Certainly lWalter Graham, Tory Criticism in the Quarterly Review l§Qng§§g (New York: Columbia University Press, 1921), p. 38. Tory critics Wm Pattern as stwr cmservatiVe; wt e suggested means to arefol'llist tandem lories. Consequently! once during his 1i: his nephew J-T~ 0° and the editi‘ms 0 then ll. Coleridg e'tition of S.T. C0 Xelson Coleridge, tjor contemporary at the time of the htludes a brief 1 five periodicals filmed the 9g 35 Coleridge's pc After 1835 Shstmtial retog Phlished prior ' Fears until the . \~ l1 ~ 681. Howeve 37. Tory critics favored their own writers. Coleridge followed the same pattern as Wordsworth and Southey in turning from radical to conservative; but even as a Tory, he continually changed his views and suggested means to reform the established Church and State from within, a reformist tendency not likely to win favor among the reactionary Tories. Consequently, S.T. Coleridge was reviewed in the Quarterly only once during his lifetime. In 1814 his play Remorse was reviewed by his nephew J.T. Coleridge. After that, all of S.T. Coleridge's prose and the editions of his poetry were ignored, even during 1824 and 1825 when J.T. Coleridge edited the Quarterly Review for a year. The 1834 edition of S.T. Coleridge's poems edited by another nepheW, Henry NEISon Coleridge, was reviewed by the editor in the QEEEEEEAX} This major contemporary criticism of S.T. Coleridge's poetry was in press at the time of the poet's death, and that issue of the quarterly includes a brief notice of S.T. Coleridge's death, the only one of the five periodicals to extend this recognition although some Of them followed the Quarterly Review in a brief surge of POSthumouS recognition of Coleridge's poetry. After 1835 the Quarterly Review, like the EQ}E§E£EE.§EXEEE, gave Substantial recognition to major works by and about Coleridge that were PUblished prior to 1855. The journal also ignored Coleridge for thirty years until the surge of biographical studies motivated a major essay in 1887. However, the Quarterly included more occasional complimentary references to Coler. other periOdical of attendee and Mt eclipsed interest 1 In the 135‘ 1' screwbat 1955 read criticism Its '°' increased in rumba? list, the policy 0f the magazine did n‘ defended in the he lays "the W traced by its orig mid reactionary Feline some refor The last ha path in literary ifitital Charges its publication v m a bide variet liableseenee of i it? ~ L the Quarteri asih ' Onty on an 38. references to Coleridge in articles about other people's works than any other periodical of this group. Consequently, scattered praise of Coleridge and limited criticism continued even during the period of eclipsed interest in Coleridge. In the last half of the century the Quarterly Review became somewhat less reactionary in politics and less progressive in literary criticism. Its form also changed slightly in that the articles were increased in number but were generally shorter in the later years. Also,the policy of anonymous reviewing was finally abolished. That the magazine did not change in basic ways, however, is asserted and defended in the centennial review which recounts the history of the Quarterly Review. The article closes with a declaration that in later days "the Quarterly has endeavoured to stand upon the ancient lines traced by its original founders." The policy of the journal was to avoid reactionary as well as radical teaching in politics and to welcome some reforms, or so the editors avowed in 1909. The last half of the nineteenth century marked a conservative path in literary criticism in the angtgrly_without the brutal critical charges of the earlier years. But in the twentieth century the publication was forced to recognize that increasing competition and a wide variety of interests in contemporary affairs led to faster obsolescence of information and specialization than the general culture that the Quarterly espoused. Thus, "...the man who would speak with authority on any one Subject finds it even harder to keep in mind its bearing on my 0th increasing importer the terl '5 w the general quarter influence, indeed : lievish to contin‘ Eris a recognitio the traditional pa allroach that had beginning . Whereas the rennet the increan Ty? . c. a later M Ion publication ; in ..b . Wm new identity it a 'iziline \. The“) Fri. .1 4“ 'e'e reel “than. Lockhe lll _ bro 1334, le; Elaci’ldgodfi 1“ See ., e Cent, \e') Volufile 2 'l ‘G'ahan, E 39. bearing on many others."1 Because of this Specialization and the increasing importance placed on faster dissemination of information, the Quarterly's centennial article in 1909 suggests that the day of the general quarterlies quite likely had passed; and in terms of influence, indeed it had. But in 1909 the Quarterly Review expresses the wish to continue as before. Thus, the end of one hundred years marks a recognition of changing times coupled with a desire to retain the traditional pattern of the past, much the kind of reactionary approach that had characterized the Quarterly Egyigy_from its beginning. C. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine Whereas the Tory Quarterly Review was founded in London to combat the increasing influence of the Whig Edinburgh Review, eight years later Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine appeared as a competing Tory publication in Edinburgh. Although six issues appeared as the Edinburgh Monthly Magazine, the periodical is considered here under the new identity it assumed at the seventh issue as Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. Then, the conservative editors James Cleghorn and Thomas Pringle were replaced by James Hogg, John Wilson, and John Gibson Lockhart. Lockhart subsequently edited the Quarterly Review from 1826 to 1854, leaving Blackwood's under the editorship of William Blackwood.2 l"The Centenary of 'The Quarterly Review' (11)," Quarterly Review, Volume 211, July, 1909, P- 324' 2Graham, English Literary Periodicals, p. 274-275. when Mid announced the 9‘11“” smthing more spfil the Will m effort he and John repeatedly involved continued to write editor of that ion: conservative. iron the quarterly no until 1831 COI prices, and other Then the publicat iotnat common to largely of origin In its seve lid for attention. SWage attack on Ettack 0n Coleri Mitt that not :tb' ' netting pract: 1Graham, 40. When Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine was introduced, John Lockhart announced the editorial intention to represent the Tory position with something more sprightly than the "blundering and bigoted pedantry of the Quarterly Review, eSpecially of Croker and Southey." In this effort he and John Wilson succeeded with shocking articles that repeatedly involved the magazine in libel suits. Southey and Croker continued to write for the Quarterly during Lockhart's long reign as editor of that journal, but by then John Lockhart had also become more conservative. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine was published monthly and differed from the quarterly reviews in that it printed more original material and until 1831 continued to chronicle deaths, births, marriages, stock prices, and other such matter traditionally associated with magazines. Then the publication dropped all such miscellany and shifted to a format common to modern literary magazines, a periodical composed largely of original articles, fiction, and poetry.1 In its seventh issue the newly revamped magazine made a startling bid for attention with a review of the Biographia Literaria and a savage attack on Coleridge as the introductory article. Whereas this attack on Coleridge was more vehement than the review by William Hazlitt that motivated Coleridge's Biographia comments on contemporary reviewing practices, readers of this issue of Blackwood's were more lGraham, English Literary Periodicals, p. 279. 511wa an essay essay written in so lakes derogatory pe to the extant 0f Ii mus W oth‘l“y at t' its Place am through pol-11 uteraIY new the history ' As this earl Pattern 0f liberal like that of the 9. throughout the oer Etiodical V35 P0; atdbecause its h attracted readers journal's P°liti° the reviews that accented their p0 are dictated by hthe magazine I attraction rathet Suggests that Bl with, a tactic 1 Graham, E l s t, Yale t ..R. Lone nlversity 41. shocked by an essay entitled "The Chaldee Manuscript," a satirical essay written in somewhat blaSphemous Scriptural language. This essay makes derogatory personal allusions that slander local characters even to the extent of ridiculing physical infirmities. Thus Blackwood's gathered a harvest of well-deserved obloquy at the very outset of its career, and took its place among the infamous few periodicals which, through political bias and the besmirching of literary reputations, wrote a regrettable chapter in the history of criticism. As this early sensationalism diminished, Blackwood's fell into a pattern of liberal literary criticism and conservative politics quite like that of the Quarterly Review, and it maintained this identity* throughout the century. Thomas R. Lounsbury suggests that the periodical was popular in the early years both for its vindictiveness and because its literary criticiSm was of such a high quality that it attracted readers who were not necessarily sympathetic with the journal's political views. If this is true, Blackwood's differed from the reviews that had influence largely with those readers who also accepted their political views and were willing to have their literary taste dictated by the same source. The calibre of Coleridge criticism in the magazine more strongly suggests that sensationalism was the attraction rather than the quality of the criticism. Lounsbury also Suggests that Blackwood's was popular because it appeared on time each month, a tactic seldom shared by the reviews.2 The conservative lGraham, English Literary_Periodicals, p. 275—276. 2T.R. Lounsbury, The Life and Times 9§_Tennyson (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1915), p. 101- directi‘m °f m coalition by 1868 class readers 0f go Publication had a c costls6d, consider cmservative trend have continued intt But at the b‘ in literary critic loleridge, Hunt: 3 inrdsworth, and 0t contributor, and € 311819. At that articles that l>m W recou Coleridge for con 1invitation to edi editor's amusemer an the w h Vt‘nln‘ he request rel' 1W also snne 1Ellegard. 2 . Edinburgl 42. direction of Blackwood's is reflected in statistics that show its. recognition by 1868 as an organ appealing to upper middle and upper class readers of good education and conservative views. By then the publication had a circulation of approximately 7,500 per month and cost 236d, considerably less than the quarterly reviews.1 The conservative trend of the magazine and its emphasis on literature have continued into the twentieth century. But at the beginning, Blackwood's took a more independent.stand in literary criticism than the quarterlies with its attacks on Coleridge, Hunt, and Hazlitt and more sympathetic criticism of Shelley, Wordsworth, and.other contemporary writers. Walter Scott became a contributor, and even Coleridge was won over to contribute articles in 1819. At that time the.attacks on him were dramatically replaced by articles that praise him excessively. Mrs. Oliphant's history of Blackwood's recounts an anecdote describing how the editors solicited Coleridge for contributions, and he interpreted their request as an invitation to edit the magazine. The review of her book in the Edinburgh Review of January, 1898, seconds her and the Blackwood's editor‘s amusement that Coleridge, whose owu two periodicals IEE.K§EEEE§2 and Thg_Friend had failed miserably, could assume that his services Would be requested to edit the thriving northern monthly.2 This review also suggests that the justification for attacking Coleridge 1Ellegard, p. 33. 2Edinburgh Review, Volume 187, January, 1898, p. 58. l l l lay in the theory th scathing public anal were tolerated beca" other British "it“ to be attaCked in t1 mm why Coleridl on the Cockney S°h° (John Wilson) , who leigh Hunt. in addition t range from savage 1 poetry and original :isrellaneous lettt mrginéflia contrib if this aspect of Plagiarism against lees F. terrier e the Germans. Lilo iiition of Coleri ilflo, .. it than of or \: gtol ' - flit in l (alirido ‘ be and J ‘ 51L “Won and rel ltd we lay in the theory that a public personality was a fair Subject for scathing public analysis. The reviewer reasons that many lake poets were tolerated because they lived fairly close to Scotland whereas other British writers, particularly those from London, were likely to be attacked in the northern journal.1 The reviewer does not explain why Coleridge was singled out for abuse, although the attack on the Cockney School of poetry is.attributed to Christopher North (John Wilson), who described Coleridge as an even greater quack than Leigh Hunt. In addition to reviews of Coleridge's poetry and prose that range from savage to obsequious, Blackwood's printed parodies of his poetry and original contributions by S.T. Coleridge that included miscellaneous letters, a sonnet, a book review, and a selection of marginalia contributed by James Gillman, the first public recognition of this aspect of Coleridge's work. In 1818 Coleridge's charge of plagiarism against Hume is reported, and in 1840 an article signed by James F. Ferrier elaborates the charge that Coleridge plagiarized from the Germans. Like the Quarterly Review, Blackwood's reviewed the 1834 edition of Coleridge's poems after his death, but more in a tone of eulogy than of criticism. Then, in his review of James Gillman's EEEE g: Coleridge in 1845 Thomas DeQuincey makes a severe attack on Coleridge and James Gillman that really is a defense of his own Opium addiction and rebuttal of Gillman's charges against him. lEdinburgh Review, Volume 187, January, 1898, p. 52. 43. Although 001" hem 1355 and 187 we Peripheral cut on literary “New translations. In t that of other coutr noticed in an attic receives less dire< Coleridge's m iarginalia in sixtj purchased by the B of Coleridge writt attacking Coleridg toleridge's life. Vibhent to reniur Although th: list, the overall E"? Standards in Q's 53119 general miieth centun hith a for Q) edited h 44. Although Coleridge underwent the same eclipse of critical interest between 1855 and 1870 in this journal as in the others, he received some peripheral criticism because Blackwood's published original essays on literary subjects such as Shakespeare's plays, odes, the drama, and translations. In these articles Coleridge's work is recognized with that of other contributors to the subject. In 1871 Coleridge is noticed in an article on great poets after 1750, and in 1874 he receives less direct attention in a review of his daughter Sara Coleridge's Memoirs. Subsequently, Blackwood's surveyed Coleridge's marginalia in sixty volumes from Joseph Green's library that were purchased by the British Museum. To treat the series of biographies of Coleridge written in the 18805, Blackwood's devotes an essay to attacking Coleridge's biographer Brandl rather than to an account of Coleridge's life. The criticism of Brandl's work is sufficiently vehement to remind readers of the Blackwood's of old. Although this survey of Coleridge's critical reception in Black- Eggdig Edinburgh Magazine displays a variety of stances toward the poet, the overall direction of the publication was toward conservative Tory standards in politics and literary criticism. This attitude and the same general format have continued in the monthly magazine in the twentieth century. D. The Westminster Review With a format similar to the two earlier reviews, the Westminster W Review, edited by John Bowring, was begun in 1824 under the general l ideological influer by James m1. All greatest number" p‘ Benthan, even at t‘ Slettrum of shades W announced b faction and its de 0f the majority, . me" was intende mutiples which, °i hum happines: lhe radical first issue With “to, the 13,) although that joc 35.: . new 45. ideological influence of Jeremy Bentham as Specifically interpreted by James Mill. Although the doctrine of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" provided the fundamental principle for followers of Bentham, even at the beginning, the publication represented a wide spectrum of shades of radicalism. The prOSpectus of the Westminster Review announced both its determination not to represent a political faction and its desire to make this review represent the true interests of the majority, who certainly must be considered a faction. The review was intended to represent the majority by recommending the principles which, the editors believed, could best increase the sum of human happiness and ameliorate the condition of mankind.2 The radical political position of the review was indicated in the first issue with James Mill's attack on the English aristocracy, the clergy, the law, and the reviews, particularly the Edinburgh Review, although that journal advocated some of the same educational reforms as the Westminster Review. But Mill declares that the Whigs and their Edinburgh Review had no more actual concern for the common people than the Tories and their Quarterly Review. Rather, Mill says the Whigs pretend interest in the people in order to advance their own interests. James Mill defends this charge on the grounds that all men are motivated 1James Madison, "The Federalist, No. 10," American Is3ues The §2§£§1 Record, Volume 1, Merle Curti, ed. (New York: J.B. Lippincott Co'! 2 Volumes), p. 123. 2George L. Nesbitt, Benthamite Reviewing The First Twelve Years 2f the Westminster Review 1824—1838 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), p. 34. by self-interest’ ‘ share in the "PIOE “Lie! asserts tha only from T017 cm Carlile's radicali chsses VhiCh, he the prey 0f mm humndmm“ me View beget by attad‘ifl northern monthly bnoh but naintai the Westminster i that differed in as based on the its a great we inressed; but t hnngnost of t fir month during 35 the first edi aPltorinately ht ~~ddr reviews. lNesbitt, n. ~hesbitt, 46. by self-interest, and periodicals flatter readers because they want a share in the "profits of misrule."l Mill's article on the Edinburgh Egyigy asserts that the Utilitarians consider themselves distinct not only from Tory conservatism but from Whig liberalism and from Richard Carlile's radicalism. But James Mill was no supporter of the lower classes which, he believed, were "brutalized," undiscriminating, and the prey of violent demagogues. According to Mill, they can no more be trusted than the aristocracy.2 The Westminster Review, then, was like Blackwood's in that it began by attacking other people and publications. It differed from the northern monthly in that Blackwood's made its attacks on people and books but maintained a conservative Tory political stance whereas the Westminster Review expressed a radical political point of view that differed from the position of the other publications because it was based on the utilitarian ideology. The first issue of the magazine was a great success, perhaps because of the distinctive political views expressed; but the Westminster Review was not a financial Success during most of the century. The magazine sold only about 1200 copies per month during the early years compared with the sale of 3000 c0pies of the first edition. By 1864, however, circulation had increased to approximately 4000 copies per issue, still considerably less than the other reviews. lNesbitt, p. 41. 2Nesbitt, p. 42. "l l l John 3mg members of the non price of the 1'0“” and language: “$3 widening upper mic readers were consi he predominantly Probably the diSP‘ ad the actual mi declaration that Mgazihe did not in the early year tenfold. first, larties and to SI Etcmplish certa; 3Ezoeracy, again but lurely on th Jeremy Ben Eleatest Dumber hierests. For 35;? ~ , ‘0 be EoueaI lEllegaro’ 'l ‘NESbitt, 1 » JNesbitt, 47. John Bowring described the readers of the Westminster Review as members of the non-opulent and democratic classes. But the high price of the journal (six shillings) combined with its elevated thought and language, suggest that the Review was largely directed toward the widening upper middle class. As this trend continued, by 1864 its readers were considered to be the educated upper and middle class of the predominantly liberal philosophical, radical inclination. Probably the disparity between Bowring's concept of the readership and the actual middle class buyers stemmed from the publication's novel declaration that the people should be Spoken to, even though the magazine did not actually elect to do the speaking.2 Particularly in the early years, the objectives of the Westminster Review were twofold. First, it aimed to weaken the power of the two major parties and to strengthen the middle class. Second, it intended to accomplish certain specific reforms in government and society. Democracy, again, was justified not on the theory of natural rights but purely on the principle of expediency.3 Jeremy Bentham's theory of the greatest happiness for the greatest number hinged on allowing each individual to pursue his own interests. For this plan to succeed, the Benthamites believed people had to be educated, particularly in their ”social instincts," the lEllegard, p. 28. ZNesbitt, p. 49. 3Nesbitt, p. 56. aSpectS 0f human 6 as it is being ap; to the Bentham“: infinitely educab‘ educational the“ John WW and Da the critical View clearly in the G that are discussE According ‘ self-interest am emediency based reflected the Vi gm intellectua Eamon: with the Senhhaaites held negative influex Press. Therefo atzaeked the se Church and my radical like S. lh‘eshitt‘ l. ~heshitt hesbit: 48. aspects of human development that relate to the definition of "culture" as it is being applied in this.study. This viewpoint was acceptable to the Benthamites because they believed that all people are infinitely educable.l This conclusion of Benthamite psychology and educational theory was based on the theories of the mind provided by John Locke and David Hartley. That these theories were prevalent in the critical views of others besides the utilitarians will be indicated clearly in the criticisms of Coleridge's poetry during his lifetime that are discussed in the next chapter. According to Bentham, education is necessary for enlightened self-interest and progress because all human action is dominated by expediency based on self-interest. Thus, the H2§EEEE§EEE.3§X§EE reflected the Victorian cult of progress and the theory that man must grow intellectually to perceive his best interests and to remain in harmony with the scientific development of the time.2 But the Benthamites believed constructive education had to overcome the nEgative influences of the Church of England and censorship by the press. Therefore, James Mill attacked the first and John Stuart Mill attacked the second of these.3 This antagonism toward the established Church and Tory government made it unlikely that a reconstructed radical like S.T. Coleridge would be well received in the quarterly lNesbitt, p. 22. ZNesbitt, p. 68. 3Nesbitt, p. 73. ‘l l I, \ while it was “nde' was ign°red until the met of the l until 1836 ‘the“ J‘ The W it flattered the quarterly journal attain at 1935‘ t the W! attitudes of the fath in educati< legit, worship 0 earnestness and hese were the c ~the generally hostil reflect the New tolerate a lite: for a place wit ad the M utilitarian can that reason, th hesbiet, u. ‘heshitt 49. while it was under the influence of the Mills. And, in fact, Coleridge was ignored until after 1828 when Colonel T. Perronet Thompson became the owner of the Westminster Review and the Mills withdrew from it until 1836 when John Stuart Mill became the editor. The Westminster Review not only advocated education; but because it flattered the mataial aspirations of the middle class, the quarterly journal enjoyed a vogue with the social group who hoped to attain at least the external accoutrements of the nobility.1 Therefore, the Westminster Review early foreshadowed some of the dominant attitudes of the Victorian era: reverence for the middle class, faith in education almost as a panacea, and in science almost as magic, worship of progress, belief in moral evolution, and above all, earnestness and insistence on individual effort along practical lines. These were the characteristic Benthamite attitudes of the early years.2 The Westminster Review and its utilitarian leaders were generally hostile to literature because their literary ideal had to reflect the New Man in the New Age. Bentham had only agreed to tolerate a literary section in the radical publication to qualify it for a place with the other two prestigious reviews, the Edinburgh and the Quarterly. Few literary works or artists advocated the utilitarian cause of the greatest good for the greatest number. For that reason, the scarcity of utilitarian writers made it necessary to lNesbitt, p. 75. 2Nesbitt, p . 92 . I l ! fill the literary expressed differe criticism in the GI occasional rev shaped to utilita 0“ the author or Years instead of AS a journr reforms, the Hg order to compete reviewers Vere n the Editors am, added t0 the ess Conse‘lue‘ltly a1: mgiflality than them rem-Mrs hooks to increa % thus pro h “Wines th literary Critic MEI-V Praised WW Rey revealed. The % In the 50. fill the literary section of the journal with criticisms of writers who expressed different political views. Therefore, much of the literary criticism in the Westminster was destructive rather than constructive. 0r occasional reviews, like that of Coleridge's poetry in 1830, were shaped to utilitarian views by imposing an incompatible set of beliefs on the author or by referring to works of his earlier, more radical years instead of the later conservative statements. As a journal primarily intended to institute political and social reforms, the Westminster Review included literary reviews merely in order to compete with other publiations in its class. Therefore, reviewers were not always compelled to reflect the political ideas of the editors although a political introduction would occasionally be added to the essays. The low editorial regard for literature consequently allowed Westminster reviewers greater freedom and originality than usually prevailed in review essays. In this era when reviewers criticized authors for their political views and puffed books to increase sales, the utilitarian goals of the Westminster Review thus provided a more neutral critical approach than was possible in magazines that professed a genuine interest in literature and literary criticism. Therefore, an author like Walter Scott, who was widely praised in other journals, was frequently attacked in the Westminster Review; and some flaws in his writing were perceptively revealed. The only authors who were truly praised by the Westminster Review in the early years were James Mill and Jeremy Bentham. But the editors believed could not help En institute free tr useful: but it wa So We ghoul reads fictl endings and the pessimj Not only "‘ depressing» bUt : utilitarians demi hsofmecmm literature 38 a the: tie M declared that by sum literature regarded content criticism in ti tended to avoid mannmna hehestninster Nihics beyond 3 judging lite de muster con 1; \eshitt‘ 1, hesbitt JXeshitt ———_¥ 51. editors believed that poetry and literature of.other kinds, finally, could not help England spin cotton, abolish the poor laws, or institute free trade. They believed literature was not only not ' useful, but it was often discouraging because of the unhappy endings. So we should not be surprised to find the New Man, if he reads fiction at all, clamouring for tales with happy endings and decrying the inclusion of the unpleasant or the pessimistic. Not only was literature considered frequently useless and depressing, but it was generally owned by the aristocracy, and the utilitarians demanded a useful rather than a decorative literature. Most of the contemporaries of the Westminster Review editors regarded literature as a polite ornament for the members of the leisure class whom the Westminster attacked. The Westminster editors, in turn, declared that by corrupting national thought or lulling it to sleep, such literature only made reform more difficult; therefore, they regarded contemporary literature as positively vicious.2 But criticisms in the Westminster Review, although based on politics, tended to avoid the malicious attacks on personalities common in other periodicals, particularly Blackw00d's Edinburgh Magazine. And the Westminster Review extended the relationship of literature and politics beyond that of the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews. Instead Of judging literature only on the basis of political biases, the Westmins ter connected politics and literature with the concept of a good life.3 In Spite of adopting literature in the province of lNesbitt, p. 101. 2Nesbitt, p. 104. 3Nesbitt, p. 67. idealism how“ few articles abol Betause th‘ society for in)“ thirties were de‘ well as in polit illrovemnt in l writers were inf utilitarian “it poverty of all k Southey, wordsvc new groUp of Re” desminster M nodern authors l Although contemporary li standpoint, no interpretations literary essays position, but i :olermt advocz Because . hter atone, th 1 . heshitt 52. Benthamism, however, the Westminster Review still contained relatively few articles about literary subjects; Because the Benthamites believed strongly in the capability of society for improvement, some articles written in the early eighteen thirties were devoted to showing that improvement in literature as well as in politics was already discernible.l Such a theory of improvement in literature had to lead to the conclusion that earlier writers were inferior to contemporary authors. But as there were few utilitarian writers, so the period between 1830 and 1850 displayed a poverty of all kinds of important writers because older poets like Southey, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Scott ceased to write; and the new group of Keats, Shelley, and Byron died early. And even the Westminster Review critics could not bring themselves to claim that modern authors were superior to Shakespeare. Although the Westminster Review was somewhat antagonistic toward contemporary literature and evaluated authors from a utilitarian standpoint, no one brand of radicaliSm was the basis for all its interpretations of literary works. Editor Bowring often introduced literary essays with a utilitarian defense to reflect the Benthamite position, but he was also a writer of occasional poetry and a more tolerant advocate of literature than the stricter Benthamites. Because of the utilitarian politics and lack of emphasis on literature, the pattern of Coleridge's critical reception in the J‘Nesbitt , p . 155. Westminster Rte—vi fun periodicals Wake years thi the only one of Coleridge's poet utilitarian poet tbeen, Celeridg renewer's atti‘ and in an era 0 the article C10 threach of re more than uSual review_vtl 111E because editor Tue 1834 WE Year. In 1vo Res %Wa relati0n to th 1 Nesbitt 53. Westminster Review is quite different from his reception in the other four periodicals. Although Coleridge was ignored during the first ' twelve years this magazine was published, the Westminster Review was the only one of these five journals to review the 1829 edition of Coleridge's poetry. In this essay Coleridge is defended as a utilitarian poet in the Benthamite tradition. To substantiate this theory, Coleridge's prose is completely disregarded. But the reviewer's attitude toward Coleridge's poetry is generally favorable, and in an era of the editorial "we" to disguise individual reviewers, the article closes with a personal tribute to Coleridge, an unheard— of breach of review etiquette, particularly in the light of Bowring's more than usual insistence that "there were to be no reviewers, only a review."1 The most probable reason why this tribute was permitted was because editor Bowring wrote the article.2 The 1834 edition of Coleridge's poetry went unnoticed in the Westminster Review, but Table_§§lk was briefly reviewed the following year. In 1840 John Stuart Mill's final contribution as editor of the Westminster was a remarkable evaluation of Coleridge's philosophy in relation to that of Jeremy Bentham. This perceptive essay, in a lNesbitt, p. 151. 2Graham and Nesbitt disagree on the author of this article. Walter Graham gives no evidence for his opinion that it was written by John Stuart Mill. For his opinion that the author is John Bowring, George Nesbitt cites John Stuart Mill's Autobiography in which Mill states that he did not write for the Westminster Review between 1828 and 1836. See Graham, English Literary Periodicals, p. 253 and Nesbitt, p. 152. sense, makes amen Coleridge's prose 1840 and 1866 Col ' mention in articl 1 and a book about interest in Cole‘ review of moms WEE Provid Phil-woolly and 1 Coleridge in an avoided mention And again break: series of Coler; 351870. A150 m ignored did briefly men n 1893- And i L" herded Uncle from his grand; It is old the Westminste \ iron other rev flso “Viewed TQ‘ ~ TIER Varie( 54. sense, makes amends for John Bowring's contention in 1830 that Coleridge's prose should be ignored in favor of his poetry. Between 1840 and 1866 Coleridge is occasionally given brief but favorable mention in articles about the Church of England, the works of Homer, and a book about friendships among the poets. But in 1866 when critical interest in Coleridge was generally at its lowest point, Walter Pater's review of Thomas Alsop's Conversations, Letters, and_Recollections of Coleridge provides a significant reappraisal of Coleridge's religion, philosophy and literary criticism. The Westminster Review thus honored Coleridge in an era when he was otherwise little noticed, whereas it had avoided mention of him at all when he was widely recognized before 1830. And again breaking with review tradition, the Westminster published two series of Coleridge's previously unpublished letters in April and July of 1870. Also in contrast with the other publications, the Westminster Egyigw ignored all of the biographical studies of the 18803 although it did briefly mention J. Dykes Campbell's edition of Coleridge's works in 1893. And in 1895 the only signed review in these journals during the period under consideration was given E.H. Coleridge's selections from his grandfather S.T. Coleridge's notebooks entitled Anima Poetae. It is clear that as the pattern of political attitudes varied in the Westminster Review so the literary criticism in this journal differs from other reviews and magazines as well. Although this quarterly also reviewed selectively and Often in the familiar essay form, the reviews varied both in what and when they were published, and because the reformist per literary reviews of the other jouu January 2, five Periodicals ma‘dazine was for the reincarnatit MMice became Q m in 18; '35 al’lJOinted e was edited by C in an edit was not only tt in existence} homes) incl- rt o fight mater % % 351d 31a 1 W Spouse a Part Apostles hoped 'Grfiham, 2 Graham) 3'1ar0han “liar (1h a1" 55. the reformist perspective of the Westminster continued to dominate some literary reviews more extensively and for a longer period than was true of the.other journals. E. Th9 Athenaeum January 2, 1828, the first weekly Athenaeum, the last of these five periodicals, appeared. This inexpensive literary and scientific magazine was founded by James Silk Buckingham with no less a goal than the reincarnation of the Athenaeum of antiquity.1 Frederick Denison Maurice became editor when the Athenaeum merged with the London Literagy Chronicle in 1828, followed by fellow Coleridgean John Sterling, who was appointed editor the following year. After that the Athenaeum was edited by Charles Wentworth Dilke from 1830 until 1846.2 In an editorial note of 1828 the Athenaeum announced that it Was not only the most comprehensive but also the cheapest periodical in existence.3 Largely written at the beginning by so—called Cambridge Apostles, includig Maurice and Sterling, the weekly publication proposed to fight materialism as represented by the Edinburgh Review and HEEE: minster Review and the anti—reformists of the Tory Quarterly Review and Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. However, the magazine did not espouse a party affiliated set of political principles. Rather, the Apostles hoped to reform the world by moral and spiritual regeneration.4 lGraham, English Literary Periodicals, p. 317. 2Graham, English Literagy Periodicals, p. 318. 3Marchand, p. 8. 4Marchand, p. 11. Both the Bentham town Apostl for different re than they oppoSt Apostles were or E editorial po concentrate on lOUmal's brief reforms and for moral,2 The Q mmllfitition wi1 reading PUblic mitt“? and . P°Pularity Was Sales increaSe heriod of Gold 1846 and the t periodical sol ad the Price MW tea the whet mag position now lilarchar r) V ‘hesbm 3EllEga 56. Both the Benthamite radicals of the Westminster Review and the liberal Athenaeum Apostles frequently supported the same reform objectives but for different reasons. And they opposed each other as much or more than they opposed the Tories.1 But the liberal political views of the Apostles were only indirectly expressed in the Athenaeum which maintained an editorial policy of political and religious neutrality in order to concentrate on expositions of scientific and literary matters. The journal's brief essays were intended to educate masses of people for reforms and for adjustment to progress in knowledge, either useful or moral.2 The Athenaeum was able to attain a widespread popularity in competition with the quarterly reviews as the increasingly independent reading public declined to have its literary tastes dictated by the arbitrary and expensive reviews. Another factor in the weekly magazine's popularity was its low cost. Dilke lowered the price three times, and sales increased substantially each time. Even during the journal's period of eclipsed prestige between the end of Dilke's editorship in 1846 and the beginning of Norman MacColl's editorship in 1870, the periodical sold between fifteen and twenty thousand copies per week, and the price was again lowered finm 4d to 3d by 1865.3 Thus, the Athenaeum reached a broader segment of the middle class audience than the other magazines being considered here. It occupied the literary position now held by the London Times (although it was not classed as lMarchand, p. 15. 2Nesbitt, p. 65. 3Ellegard, p. 22. newspaper and was maintained 1 in its extensiv: As a week less frequently correSpondents . active criticis quarterly revie in the m less than one ( extended thinj articles, they brief TeV’iew 0 ESSay the TEVi or swim whe fey COMM c A CharacteriSt Mill in the graCuCes in u 9'" The jOl also noted on if. , m that salt EU‘htarians 57. a neWSpaper and avoided the stamp tax until 1855), and the circulation was maintained because a sufficient number of readers were interested in its extensive coverage of literary and scientific matters. As a weekly publication, the Athenaeum had more space than the less frequently published magazines in which to print letters by correspondents. Therefore, the Athenaeum maintained a more current, active criticism than the imperially distanced judgments of the major quarterly reviews or even the monthly Blackwood's. Very few articles in the Athenaeum were more than three pages long, and they often were less than one column of print, whereas articles in the reviews often extended thirty pages or more. Because of the brevity of Athenaeum articles, they often focused on a particular literary issue or a brief review of a single book. With the broad scope of a general essay the reviews often attempted major evaluations of the author or subject whereas the Athenaeum frequently printed a single poem, a few comments on a poet or poem, or some newly discovered marginalia. A characteristic example is the first article about Coleridge's poetry in the Athenaeum. John Sterling defends Coleridge's poetic practices in "Christabel" against several critical objections to the poem. The journal's pro—Coleridge position in the early years is also noted on the occasion of the Athenaeum‘s merger with the Literary Chronicle in 1828 when Trench wrote to Kemble that "Maurice and that gallant band of Platonico—Wordsw0rthian—Coleridgean-anti— utilitarians still keep with undivided away at the helm."1 1Lounsbury, p. 84. The Canbri< harmonized with I who believed the exceptions are fl sophical foundat Gibbon and Hume advocates of row PhiIOSOphers, we Wes. The ( We practice Cmceptim of t} the early M mmmt work ‘ Athenw criti lsmyscn as the Generally its time and a LiterElture, He attempted to n inking of the classificatim lMarcham ZfiarChar , J MarthaI 58. The Cambridge Apostles favored writers whose creeds could be harmonized with the general desire for social and moral improvement and who believed the infinite mind is fed from intuitive sources. However, exceptions are found in Athenaeum reviewers who attacked the philo— sophical foundations of romanticism and even preferred skeptics like Gibbon and Hume to prophetic poets like Wordsworth.l And among the advocates of romantic principles drawn from Coleridge and the German philosophers, Wordsworth, not Coleridge, was regarded as the poet of prophecy. The Cambridge Apostles tended to praise Wordsworth‘s poetic practice and Coleridge's poetic theories.2 Because of the conception of the contemporary poet as a prophet of the "New Age," the early Athenaeum critics were partial to writers whose most important work had been done before 1820. In the forties, however, Athenaeum critical allegiance gradually shifted from Wordsworth to Tennyson as the prophet of the new times.3 Generally, the Athenaeum was both a reflector of the mood of its time and a leader in the most important forces in Victorian literature. Henry Stebbing wrote essays for the Athenaeum that attempted to relate periodical literature to the "whole scheme and working of the world." He divided poetry into higher and lower classifications and declared that England had none of the higher lMarchand, p. 266. 2Marchand, p. 246. 3Marchand, p. 275. type, but periov because it encm l f . mot. There 0 lover ions of of the society the "greater re recognition of 1'11 Frederick De development lie the workings 01 Publication rel literary Opinil Other magazine; joumal Teflec amioning an It mirro ing tast 0f the g 1‘18 and EOVement When Ch; pf u LHE W A“111, 1828 n. ‘ zfienw I) 1828’ 59. type, but periodical literature could be of value for minor reasons because it encourages thepursuit of science and intellectual improve— meat."-L Therefore, Stebbing believed periodicals should criticize the lower forms of literature that currently existed. For the improvement of the society as a whole, however, the Athenaeum placed its hope in the "greater refinement of the middle ranks of society."2 Victorian recognition of the artists as legislators of taste was also reflected in Frederick Denison Maurice's declaration that the seeds of moral development lie in the greatest writers of the country who "assist the workings of the spirit of truth within us."3 The tone of the publication reflected the hope and optimism of the reformer, but the literary opinions tended to be mild and liberal by comparison with other magazines. Thus, the art and literary criticism of the weekly j0urnal reflected the intelligent average trends of the time without Championing any radical departures. It mirrored the slow but certain change which was affect— ing taste with the decline in this period of the tradition of the grand style and the growth of naturalism in paint— ing and in other arts. The critics were alive to new movements but never in the vanguard of them- When Charles Wentworth Dilke replaced John Sterling as editor of the Athenaeum in 1830, he set a tone of high seriousness by lHenry Stebbing, "The Athenaeum in 1828—1830," Atheaeeee, N°~ 21’ April 1, 1828, p. 305. 2Henry Stebbing, "The Athenaeum in 1828—1830," emheaeeea, NO- 27’ May 7, 1828, p. 432. 3F.D. Maurice, Athenaeum, No. 3, January 16: 1828’ p. 33' 4Marchand, p. 58. insisting that question rather bias be avoide< increased norai contributed to taste and cult] Dilke also wagv DEV literary w martial revi Scholarly and discussicm of BY the r the outstandiu Partially be a literature, a] articles Were New is 1 review the ma WES helium it renewed or publishErs to ibhld receive 1Narch; Alarm 60. insisting that reviews be written by authorities on the subject in question rather than by general writers, and that a distinct political bias be avoided. Dilke‘s Victorian desire to institute reform through increased moral education, as well as his desire to sell magazines, contributed to the Athenaeum‘s increasing influence on the literary taste and culture of masses of readers in nineteenth century England.1 Dilke also waged an intensive campaign against the practice of puffing new literary works. Consequently, because of its authoritative and impartial reviews, the Athenaeum became a repository for miscellaneous scholarly and antiquarian information as well as a forum for the discussion of diSputed matters of literary or historical interest. By the middle 18303 the Athenaeum was widely accepted abroad as the outstanding British literary journal. This recognition could partially be attributed to the prompt attention given foreign literature, art, and science.2 During the 18303 the original articles were cut to a minimum and replaced with reviews. The Athenaeum is the only one of the five publications in this study to review the majority of current books. Because the weekly magazine was politically neutral and not susceptible to publisher's puffing, it received more advertising than the less neutral competing journals. Publishers took their chances on the kind of review notices they would receive because the reviewing authority of the Athenaeum was so lMarchand, p. 42. 2Marchand, p. 46. highly respects long quotations Between 1 became editor, because reviewe issued pontific bounds of apprc became editor, booksellers, Wr Its reputation authOritative c dependability j the 1870s majoy the? had Sean 1 Coley-mgl “is reception orientation of Men-(136's WI‘ advert15ng an mgiflal matte inpbell as th titer John Ste the At % 1 \Mar ch a! Alanna. 61. highly respected by readers. Also, the Athenaeum sometimes printed long quotations or summaries of books being reviewed. Between 1846, when Dilke resigned, and 1870 when Norman MacColl became editor, the quality of Athenaeum literary criticism declined because reviewers with conservative tastes praised their friends and issued pontifical, smug judgments of authors who stepped beyond the bounds of approved Victorian proprieties.l After Norman MacColl became editor, the weekly magazine again enjoyed the respect of booksellers, writers, scientists, and the world of art and scholarship. Its reputation in the seventies and eighties for fair—minded authoritative criticism and scholarly and scientific accuracy and dependability is difficult for the modern reader to realize. During the 1870s major book sellers would often refuse to stock a book until they had seen the review in the Athenaeum.2 Coleridge's critical reception in the Athenaeum differed from his reception in the other journals because of the Coleridgean orientation of much of the magazine's criticism, sympathy for Coleridge's writing, the weekly schedule that required much material, advertising and reviews of new books, the inclination to print original matter, and after 1880 the contributions of J. Dykes Campbell as the authority for the journal on Coleridge scholarship. After John Sterling‘s sympathetic defense of "Christabel" in 1828, the Athenaeum published Coleridge‘s poems, previously unpublished lMarchand, p. 78. 2Marchand, p. 88. letters, and hi‘ century. Unlilo w usual and briefly. Although various times t of his eclipse( was not nentior Wt new editions, , letters, and n Pefiodical. A Pages of the 5 and °°°3510na1 mane, a let by Schiller pl tr“snared an, atrmslator' coleudge's w u acme are Dl’kes Cm; one CrEdit l 62. letters, and bits of marginalia as they were uncovered throughout the century. Unlike the collective reviews of the quarterlies, the Athenaeum usually noticed books by and about Coleridge individually and briefly. Although the Athenaeum made frequent mention of Coleridge at various times throughout the century, it also reflected the period of his eclipsed prestige between 1850 and 1880. In fact, Coleridge was not mentioned in the Athenaeum after 1837 until Joseph Cottle's Reminiscences was reviewed in 1847. Between 1847 and 1883 Coleridge's new editions, illustrated volumes of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," letters, and marginalia are published or reviewed in the weekly periodical. Also, occasional letters exchanged by scholars in the pages of the Athenaeum debate questions about Coleridge scholarship and occasionally produce new discoveries about Coleridge. For example, a letter noting the discovery of Coleridge's copy of a play by Schiller produced the discovery of the plays from which Coleridge translated and revised critical opinions of Coleridge's ability as a translator. Other inquiries were raised about early editions of Coleridge's works, his notebooks, and the early editions of Lyrical Ballads. Thus, particularly after 1880, Coleridge scholarship was an active area of pursuit in the columns of the Athenaeum. Certainly J. Dykes Campbell and the editors of the Athenaeum must be given much credit for the active periodical interest in Coleridge during this era. his 1 pointed toward t] twentieth centur 2 Several 1d and biography er lEYiOdicals. I. that interested legieal sequent bl gmupings 0f desigfléited becg ptIlOd was foil 5' ‘31 abour Col W“ by or ab for Critical e 'f questions C The rang described by ( inqEmmi-11 flu. golitiCal star the magazines filming Cl‘i 63. this era. This periodical interest and the series of biographies pointed toward the continuing surge of Coleridge scholarship in the twentieth'century. tannin Dominant Themes iE_Coleridge's Reception Several kinds of questions about Coleridge's poetry, prose, and biography emerge under the concept of culture advocated by these periodicals. To consider the aspects of Coleridge's life and work that interested critics during various periods, the three chrono- logical sequences of Coleridge's literary reception were distinguished by groupings of critical issues. These major divisions were designated because Coleridge's critical reception in any particular period was formed by major essays based on new publications of books by or about Coleridge. Therefore, the first issue is what kinds of books by or about Samuel Taylor Coleridge provide the subject matter for critical essays in each period. The second issue is what kinds of questions critics raised and attempted to solve during each period. The range of aSpects of Coleridge's poetry, prose, and life described by critics in these five journals was limited only by the individual qualifications of the publications with regard to their political standards and readership. But within these standards and the magazineS' policies on reviews and criticisms of literature, some recurring critical topics can be suggested in anticipation of the l l l l l l l chronological cha the criticism. I nineteenth centul his prose, and a: time, eSpecially Coleridge's life critics. With regar selves with vari matter. The poe odes, topical P‘ Shematural. . Midnight)" "Ode "The Nightingal llFears in Sclit ide'ltification ”ems like "Ode or not, becaus man" was less critics) Who e it mode-then re“tuition as "(1th ”Christa“ 64. chronological chapters to follow because some major themes prevail in the criticism. In the development of Coleridge's reputation inthese nineteenth century periodicals, his poetry first drew attention, then his prose, and as his reputation grew in the latter part of his life— time, especially after the publication of the Biographia Literaria, Coleridge's life itself became a subject of great interest tov critics. With regard to Coleridge's poetry, the critics concerned them— selves with various aspects of his poetic language, form, and subject matter. The poems were often grouped together according to form as odes, topical poems of contemporary interest, and poems about the supernatural. The so—called "conversation poems": "Frost at Midnight," "Ode to Dejection,“ "This Lime Tree Bower My Prison," "The Nightingale," "Reflections on Having Left a Place of Retirement," "Fears in Solitude," and "The Aeolian Harp" were not given a common identification as a group until the twentieth century. Contemporary poems like "Ode to France" were understood, whether well received or not, because of the radical political perspective; but "Kubla Khan" was less orthodox in form and content. Therefore, it perplexed critics, who either identified it as beautiful nonsense or ignored it altogether. In the twentieth century "Kubla Khan" has attained recognition as the third poem in Coleridge's great triumvirate along with "Christabel" and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." But in l i l l the nineteenth o praised. One of then, was the sh criticized. As Colerir influence of Da‘ criticized the Hartley's theor “35 ignored as focus critical work. The anti for writing go in the many pa meteenth cen Reviews also Portrayfl of , illBloating S- psychological the Ancient l‘ the Supemw Willing Susy DE Christabe rSections to hem Up to I 65. the nineteenth century the poem entitled "Love" was more often praised. One of the changing aspects of Coleridge's poetic reputation, then, was the shift in emphasis on which poems were most widely criticized. As Coleridge wrote his poems while he was much under the influence of David Hartley's associationist psychology, critics also criticized the poems in the years before 1850 on the basis of Hartley's theory of how the mind functions. Berkeley’s.influence was ignored as were most other possible sources of influence to, focus critical attention on the author himself in relation to.his work. The author's morality was regarded as part of his qualification for writing great poetry. Various critical attitudes were diSplayed in the many parodies of Coleridge's poems in theearly part of the nineteenth century, a form of criticism not found in later years. Reviewers also often criticized Coleridge's abundant imagery, his portrayal of the natural world in relation to the supernatural, his imaginative shaping power, and his success or failure in portraying psychological realism in poems like "Christabel” and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." For example, defenders of "Christabel" accepted the supernatural aSpects of the poem with what Coleridge called a 'hdlling suSpension of disbelief" while they defended the attitudes of Christabel and Geraldine as being realistic psychological reactions to the poetic situation. But antagonistic critics held the Poem up to ridicule. Nineteenth in Coleridge's ; fully staged, 31 plays. ”ihese t: editions of the quuently, lac complicated cri Other que COHEection wit} jWEnile poems “My discoven ad the iSSue either were th to Contemporar SubseqUent me As nine1 COleridge's p‘ destribe his in his later M and g “inched. questious th; fragmentary 66. Nineteenth century critics also attempted to evaluatethe poetry in Coleridge's plays, the reasons why they.were or were not success- fully staged, and Coleridge's skill as a translator of Schiller's plays. These translations underwent major reappraisals as the editions of the plays from which Coleridge translated were discovered. Frequently, lack of knowledge of the text or the German language complicated critical evaluation of Coleridge's translations. .Other questions raised by nineteenth century critics in connection with Coleridge's poetry involve the assessment of his juvenile poems in describing his poetic ability, the evaluation of newly discovered works, attempts to arrive at the most accurate text, and the issue of how the works should be edited. Not small problems either were the attempts to evaluate Coleridge as a poet in relation to contemporary and preceding poets as well as his influence on subsequent poets. As nineteenth century critics raised important questions about Coleridge's poetry, so too they attempted to assess or at least describe his prose. But the interest in his prose grew primarily in his later years and after his death. Coleridge's Statesman's Manual and Biographia Literaria were the first prose works to be criticized. But initial criticisms of Coleridge's prose raised questions that often recur in later critical essays. Coleridge's fragmentary style and circular reasoning are often called to account. His vacillation as ethical weak as well as his critics eventua metaphysiciams , philosophy, am marginalia sea: the m E the Pilblicatio wheat or bio AS COIeI grew. Partim Coleridge's l: exaggeratim i even When gen mdolmt or i genius, Vheth vThing poet} ships and fan thought Prom metaphySical examimed man 67. His vacillations in politics, religion, and philosophy were interpreted as ethical weakness because Of his changing.per3pectives; and his right ' as well as his ability to write his memoirs were questioned. And critics eventually attempted to evaluate his borrowings from German metaphysicians, his fragmentary views on politics, social problems, philosophy, and psychology, as well as literary criticism. The marginalia scattered through many books and collected fragments like the Literagy.Remains, 1§§l2.3§lk’ énima_poetae, and Coleridge's Collectedeette s also provided challenges to identify the genre of the publications, whether these fragments should be classed as literary comment or biography. As Coleridge became more widely known, interest in his biography grew. Particularly after his death, suppression of details of Coleridge's life by his family and friends, and revelations and exaggeration by his enemies complicated efforts to understand him even when genuine attempts were made. But whether Coleridge was indolent or ill, whether he was a great thinker or an unfulfilled genius, whether drug addiction or metaphysics drew him away from writing poetry, whether he was or was not capable of enduring friend— ships and family life, whether he vacillated constantly in his thought processes or struck directly to the heart of complex metaphysical, psychological, and theological matters, and whether he examined many sides of questions and changed his views because he was astrong, verse person were son were frequently Coleridge‘s re; about him at v critics aehiev As this role of the an “330! ninetee: and critiCal ( Chapters by n rePutation in this Study re mutation at mffing fon n Coleridge “a? period, biography ma themes mm While other forgOttEQ a} C1“ - . ltlQlSm, 1 68. a strong, versatile thinker or an.ethically weak and inconsistent person were some of the questions about Coleridge's.personality that were frequently examined by nineteenth century critics. And Coleridge's.reputation altered on the basis of the questions asked about him at various times, and the kinds of resolutions that the critics achieved. As this chapter has.described the concept of culture and the role of the artist in the nineteenth century as they relate to five major nineteenth century periodicals with their individual editorial and critical orientations, these themes will be traced in subsequent chapters by means of the chronological progression of Coleridge's reputation in the nineteenth century. Each subsequent chapter of this.study represents a period in the development of Coleridge's reputation and is marked by some distinctive features; but the unifying force of the study is the continuation of critical interest in Coleridge in these five leading periodicals during the hundred year period. Major criticisms of Coleridge's poetry, prose, and biography may be regarded as an evolution in which some critical themes recur and are defended or attacked during the entire period while other issues are raised and resolved or revised or simply forgotten after awhile. But some of the representative strains of criticism, the themes previously mentioned, are prevalent at various times during the critical asserti lifetime and the century when sd oi Coleridge' s when critical 1 criticisn at an perspective, pE in the earlier 69. times during the entire.period. However, not infrequently, a critical assertion is made during or immediately after Coleridge's. lifetime and then is dropped until the last thirty years of the century when scholars were.attempting to make a complete assessment of Coleridge's life and work. Then old charges that had been dropped when critical interest shifted away from a phase of Coleridge criticism at an earlier time were raised again from a later persPective, perhaps to motivate restatements of criticisms familiar in the earlier era. Between I the three majo‘ 011 the politic SPite of this, magazines had lory m w pare clllarterlies a: Pedodical li‘ During REE in 180 COIEridge's 1 initiated UIlc Coleridge w a cream“ to ‘ CritiCs trie ileum“ th Poetic inHOV a“? from W] the P0621 th; ) Chapter Two Introduction Between 1802 and 1834 all five journals were introduced, and the three major reviews reached their peak circulation and influence on the political views and literary tastes of their readers. In spite of this, the drift away from political partisanship in British magazines had begun by 1834. The success of the more independent Tory Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine and the politically neutral Athenaeum paralleled the gradual decline in influence of the quarterlies as increasing numbers of readers preferred independent periodical literature, free of puffing and politics. During the period from the introduction of the Edinburgh Review in 1802 until Coleridge's death in 1834, Samuel Taylor Coleridge's literary reception in these five periodicals was also initiated under the influence of several factors. First of all, Coleridge was regarded as primarily a poet who had turned from poetic creation to write disorganized prose and to study metaphysics. Critics tried to evaluate the quality of Coleridge's poetry, to determine the validity of his and Wordsworth's claims to roles as poetic innovators, and to solve the mystery of why Coleridge turned away from writing such poems as "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," the poem that was and still remains Coleridge's best claim to popular fame and distinc largely depended Locke and partic expressed in his avowed the infl the theory was the poet and hi acknowledgement ”911- However reflect a know their underst; 33hr demarcar at the Pllblic AS the them of the Coleridge's 1 theory that difficult f0 'lnpolitica1 amoral man his mind, a belief in C 71. fame and distinction as a poet.‘ To evaluate Coleridge's poetry critics largely depended on the association of ideas theory derived from John Locke and particularly David Hartley's theory of the mind which was expressed in his two volume work Observations gn_yag, Because Coleridge avowed the influence of Hartleyan psychology when he wrote the poetry, the theory was a viable critical tool from the point of view of both- the poet and his critics, although reviewers disregarded Coleridge's acknowledgement of other sources of influence on his writing before the Biographia Literaria appeared and, for the most part, afterwards as well. However, sympathetic critics who wrote after 1817 tended to reflect a knowledge of Coleridge's own critical theories which colored their understanding and interpretation of Coleridge‘s poems. Thus, a major demarcation in Coleridge criticism during this era should be made at the publication of the Biographia Literaria. As the criticism of Coleridge's poetry was dominated by the theory of the association of ideas and then some influence by Coleridge's Biographia, criticism of the poet reflected the underlying theory that a moral man will write moral works. And this theory was difficult for critics to reconcile with Coleridge's frequent changes in political and religious views, because the reviewers believed that a moral man would stand by one position and not be constantly changing his mind, a sign that his character must be weak. Critics used their belief in Coleridge's weak character to account for his shift from poetry to metapl the inconsisten objecting to Co an autobiograph organized prose ragarded S.T. ( inadequate sub: decaying geniu religious View lhese c1 PIOSe, Were re Coleridge‘s l eValuations w AS the 33st Coleridge's i Opinions, am tfected the 0' Middle c1 had disrinct lifetime, l CIiticism 0. critical is Lifetime. mat was as 72. poetry to metaphysics, and they supported this belief by pointing to the inconsistencies of opinion in the Biographia Literaria. .Besides objecting to Coleridge's changing views, to his presumption in writing an autobiography as well as some of the details in it, to his dis— organized prose.style, and to his fragmentary statements, critics regarded S.T. Coleridge's prose as inferior to his poetry and an inadequate substitute for it that only served to reflect Coleridge's decaying genius. This decay, like his changing political and religious views, was attributed to a weakness in his moral character. These critical attitudes toward the poet, his poetry, and his prose, were reflected in varying degrees in the five journals during Coleridge's lifetime. Related issues that affected critical evaluations were personal and political biases toward S.T. Coleridge. As the association of ideas theory and then the Biographia and Coleridge's personal explanations of his poems influenced critical Opinions, and the concept of morality as a prerequisite.for art affected the evaluation of Coleridge's role as an artist and legislator of middle class cultural development, personalities and politics also had distinct effects on Coleridge's critical reception during his lifetime. Because personal and political attitudes are reflected in criticism of Coleridge's life and work, the reviewers' opinions affect critical issues relating to the poetry and prose during Coleridge's lifetime. Therefore, the major issues of this chapter are to determine what was asked about Coleridge's life and work and then to explore the kind and extent criticism, com development of that also infl To consi reception betw Chéipter center major sections 1309-th- The 1909-38 as thei evaluations w section consi Vithin an 335 critical app: eValuations receiVed maj Shill. After Part m0 cox PIOSQ dllrin Primarily a Manual Cuties in come rs atit 73. kind and extent of the influences of prevalent tools of literary criticism, concern for the artist as a moral leader in the cultural development of the society, and the personal and political attitudes that also influenced Coleridge's critical reception during his lifetime. To consider these various factors bearing on Coleridge's critical reception between 1802 and 1835, the next two major divisions of this chapter center on the prose and poetry. Part One is divided into three major sections that consider dominant critical issues concerning the poetry. The first section deals with criticism of Coleridge's shorter poems as their language, form, and content reflect the critics' evaluations within an association of ideas framework. The second section considers the poems of the supernatural and the odes, also within an.association of ideas framework but also with other kinds of critical approaches. And the third section concerns critical evaluations of Coleridge‘s plays and translations because they also received major critical treatment as examples of Coleridge's poetic skill. After this tripartite discussion of Coleridge's poetic reception, Part Two concludes the chapter by describing the reception of Coleridge's Prose during his lifetime. Because S.T. Coleridge was regarded primarily as a poet and only the Biographia Literaria and Ihg_Statesman's Manual received major reviews, the prose is of less significance to critics in this era. However, between 1835 and 1870 Coleridge's conversation, prose, and biography received primary critical consideration whereas the poetry generated little interest. Although also applicabl shorter poems used to illus tried to eval 0f the poems! Expressed. 1 as a guide a literary tag Therefore, c eipress idea the poet “a PeIiectmn5 magillativg ihan the h folloWQd tl °' every d critical 0 ideas and in an eff: qualifica The OigmiZes 74. Lantern A. The Shorter Poems Although many critical concepts discussed in this section are also applicable to the other divisions of Coleridge's poetry, the shorter poems that were popular during his lifetime were frequently used to illustrate the critics' opinions and principles. Critics tried to evaluate the ideas and emotions that were the subject matter of the poems, and the language and organization with which they were expressed. An underlying critical assumption was that the poet acts as a guide and legislator for the development of the morality and literary tastes of his reader as part of the total social progression. Therefore, critics sought guidelines as to whether the poet should express ideal or real emotions such as the emotion of love. Because the poet was supposed to represent and direct the reader toward moral perfection, critics favored the expression of ideal emotion and of imaginative ideas that expressed patterns of mental reflection rather than the lower ideas imprinted on the mind from sense experience. It followed that Coleridge's and Wordsworth's declaration that the things of every day should be described in everyday language encountered strong critical opposition. Because poets were expected to represent ideal ideas and emotions in exalted language, critics were constantly engaged in an effort to evaluate the real poems before them under secondary qualifications of the ideal poems they longed for. The association of ideas theory of how the mind knows and organizes its knowledge was the device critics used to explain how the poet commmicat poems. The ass cummnicating ‘ explain this p‘ Although down a coherer mind as they 2 tOThmms Bro discussions. PSYChology we PUblished in I€1ationship intellect an are formed t (fininutiVe V Vibrations the eXterna kmd’Plau 0n the Stn Suggests t 1132“ His E3 Ect Cainfinj 2Ha 3113 75. poet communicates his ideas and thoughts through the language of his poems. The assumption was that a poem is the poet's method of communicating with and influencing the reader, and critics sought to explain this process. Although none of the critics during Coleridge's lifetime set down a coherent statement of the association of ideas theory of the mind as they applied it in literary criticism, many of them referred :to Thomas Brown or David Hartley or Archibald Alison in their discussions. The most influential statement of associationist psychology was David Hartley's two viume work, Observations 22.!é2; published in 1749. Hartley believed a logical cause and effect relationship existed between sense impressions and the ideas of intellect and emotion in the mind. According to this theory, ideas are formed by means of images or sense impressions left in the mind by diminutive vibrations in the brain.1 Hartley theorized that these vibrations produce miniatures of the original sense impressions from the external world.2 As the impressions on the brain differ in degree, kind, place, and line of direction, the degree of impression depends on the strength of the pain or pleasure association attached.3 Hartley suggests that all mental actions are built on these associations from 1David Hartley, Observations on Man, §i§_§Z§§g,.§i§,QE£y,.§Eg gig Expectations (London, 1749, Scholars Fascimiles and Reprints, Gainesville, Florida, 1966), Volume I (2 Vols.), p. 6. 2Hartley, p. 10. 3Hartley, p. 34 and 78. sense experienc um occur eithe most vivid "id! hmressed or m iom associati ideas like ho: ideas originaj Althoug impressions a become associ and Pains are reader becau: Critics deba ideas of em mentally to Should couve Nader Woul‘ um eXperie David 358061312101 1Har 2Har 3Ha1 gHa] 76. sense experience, and these sensations build related associations that can occur either synchronously or successively.l In either case the most vivid "ideas of sensation" are the ones that are most vigorously impressed or most frequently renewed.2 These miniature images or ideas form association clusters or "trains of ideas." Complex intellectual ideas like honor, beauty, and moral qualities evolve from the simple ideas originally impressed from the senses by vibrations.3 Although Hartley suggested that associations begin with sense impressions and then develop trains of ideas, these ideas subsequently become associated with words and sentences. Then intellectual pleasures and pains are deducible from them.4 Hence a poem can influence the reader because he derives pleasurable associations by reading it. Critics debated whether a poet should convey his own chain of associated ideas of emotion and intellect in language that would enable the reader mentally to reproduce a similar chain of associations or if the poet should convey his own associations in Suggestive language from which the reader would imaginatively construct a chah of associations based on his own experience. David Hartley's theory of the mind was a culmination of associationist theories that began with Aristotle. Associationist lHartley, Volume I, p. 65. 2Hartley, Volume I, p. 56. 3Hartley, Volume I, p. 475. 4Hartley, Volume I, p. 416—417. theories were it Isaac Newton, 3 time and after Tas_te_. First} to literary er: in 1811 and re‘ asthetics at associationist PSYChology am ‘0 fom assoc: association 0 the theory of Cultural deve 0f high hora; evfluation 0 het‘wem 1802 S'T- Colerid m his pom EV‘aIUatiOH ‘ . lMart or the mag .‘Jy mdAddisor HIDE ll ~‘ ) m ZREm Roman /:l rp- “. ,l. 77. theories were represented in England by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Isaac Newton, and a score of others.1 Critics during Coleridge's life— time and after were most influenced by Archibald Alison's Essays 22 Iaggg. First published in 1790, this adaptation of Hartleyan psychology to literary criticism was republished in the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1811 and remained a recognized authority on the treatment of aesthetics at least until 1875.2 Critics sometimes described the associationist doctrine as a philosophy rather than an aspect of psychology and made incomplete comparisons between Coleridge's ability to form associations of ideas with poetic language and the powers of association of Brown and Hartley. However, this associationist doctrine, the theory of the poet's role as a guide in the reader's moral and cultural development, and the idea of the poet as an elevated Spirit of high morals and lofty genius provided the major critical tools for the evaluation of Coleridge's poetic language, form, and subject matter between 1802 and 1835 although personal attitudes of the critics toward S.T. Coleridge and the editorial standards of the journals with regard to his political views also must be considered as factors in the evaluation of both his poetry and his prose. lMartin Kallish, "The Association of Ideas and Akenside's Pleasures of the Imagination," Modern Language Notes, 62 (1947): p. 166—173. ---"The Association of Ideas and Critical Theory: Hobbes, Locke, and Addison," English Literary Histogy, 12 (1945): p. 290-315. ---"The Associationist Criticism of Francis Hutcheson and David Hume," Studies _ig Philology, 43 (1946): p. 644—667. 2Rene Welleck, History_gf Literary Criticism, 1750—1950, (4 vols.), lhg_Romantic Age (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), Vol. 2, p. 114. The two major ct then, are the languag- reader and the subjec intellect and emotion language ranged from by Francis Jeffrey tc In his review 1 Francis Jeffrey atta language and subject is better than that the more cultivated exalt“ style adapts poetic diction. Cor conditions of tradi. associations of ide In this initi especially cons cior he indicates the rc t 0r the artist. FO‘ association of ide Intellect in poetr 78. The two major divisions of associationist criticism in this era, then, are the language with which associations are conveyed to the reader and the subject matter conveyed, the associations of ideas of intellect and emotion. Criticisms of Coleridge's associations of language ranged from the 1802 attack on contemporary poetic language by Francis Jeffrey to the eulogistic reviews after Coleridge's death. In his review of Robert Southey's "Thalaba, the Destroyer," Francis Jeffrey attacks the Lake Poets' use of associations of common language and subject matter because the language of cultivated peOple is better than that of their inferiors. Also, Jeffrey suggests that q the more cultivated language contains associations of a beautiful or exalted style adapted to the purposes of poetry through long use as Common language, on the other hand, lacks the poetic diction. conditions of tradition and the accompanying complex and refined associations of ideas and emotions. In this initial issue of the Edinburgh Review Jeffrey is also eSpecially conscious of the influence of a poem on the reader. And he indicates the role of the periodical in outlining the obligations of the artist. For this purpose Jeffrey contends that refined association of ideas and language reflect the highest standards of intellect in poetry, but refined and elevated poetic language and subject matter are also necessary to provide an elevating rather than a corrupting influence on the reader. Jeffrey believes an occasional successful poem might be written about a lowbred hero or interesting rustic when these hen person of their level be a b1emi5h on the P their models from wha Besides his pre of Cultivated languag insipid language in“ danger either 0f slii higher language leve that the true langua in great scenes, Jef often fail to nainté artificial devices ‘ guide by which a 8‘1 these devices.2 Un language because of low language causes Coleridge with fair Without mentioning 35 One of contempo a . garnet traditions lFran ' iiin cis Jei % REViEW N »—‘7" H 0" 0‘ r—H H. 94 C7- v '0 1, 4:4 H [Ft- 79. rustic when these heroes reflect the marvelous rather than the natural person of their level. But colloquial or trade language could only be a blemish on the poem.1 Jeffrey declares that the arts do not take their models from what is ordinary, but from what is excellent. Besides his preference for the complex and refined associations of cultivated language, Jeffrey contends that the use of mean and insipid language instead of established poetic diction presents the danger either of slipping to ridiculous depths or of rising to a higher language level than the poet intended. Although he acknowledges that the true language of passion conveys the proper language level in great scenes, Jeffrey believes the transition sections of a poem often fail to maintain that level because the author must rely on artificial devices to link major passages, and there is no natural guide by which a suitable level of expression can be established for these devices.2 Unnatural degradation, then,produces low or absurd language because of the shift from one level to another.3 The use of low language causes Jeffrey to credit Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge with false taste, although he recognizes their talent.' And without mentioning Lyrical Ballads by name Jeffrey cites the volume as one of contemporary poetry's "most flagrant acts of hostility" against traditional poetic values.4 lFrancis Jeffrey, "Thalaba the Destroyer: A Metrical Romance," Edinburgh Review, Volume I, October, 1802, p. 65. ?;§;Q., p. 65. 3;§;g., p. 68. 4Ibid., p. 65. This negative reflected in Hazlitt ems: M, After 1816 the Link Coleridge's poems d‘ Coleridge's skill 31 review of Tabi E poetry. More than of his attack on Je In Spite of t poetic language rec association of ide; by H.N. Coleridge : critic, probably J Coleridge also are the reader. lnste or common language to concretize thOl “Susi associatio bElieves, excite A great mas and PrOduce wen‘Pi‘acti a musical : 80. This negative attitude toward Coleridge's poetry is also reflected in Hazlitt's review of Christabel: Egbl§_§hgg, A Vision. lbfi.§§ifl§_2§.§l£§23 which is discussed in the following section. After 1816 the Edinburgh Review ignored the subsequent editions of Coleridge's poems during his lifetime and did not acknowledge Coleridge's skill as a poet until after his death. Then a favorable review of IEQlE.IElE included some positive comments on Coleridge's poetry. More than likely, Coleridge was ignored in the Egyigy_because of his attack on Jeffrey's reviewing practices in the Biographia. In Spite of the Edinburgh Review's negative comments, Coleridge's poetic language received positive criticism under the theory of the ‘ association of ideas by John Bowring in 1830 in the Westminster Egyigy, by H.N. Coleridge in 1834 in the Quarterly Bgyigy, and by a glggggyyigg critic, probably John Wilson, also in 1834. John Bowring and H.N. Coleridge also are concerned with the effect of poetic language on the reader. Instead of Jeffrey's preoccupation with poetic diction or common language, Bowring praises Coleridge's use of natural objects to concretize thoughts and emotions. Such concrete imagery conveys a Visual association of ideas; they are word sketches that, Bowring believes, excite the reader's imagination. A great master of the art can play upon the nervous SYStema and produce and control its vibrations as eaSlly as the WEll-practiced performer can try the compass and power of a musical instrument, and with a product of enjoyment, which seems a c not easily calc Besides pleasil i p i i 1 effective repetition gratifies the reader can be conveyed more impressions. The eye is a 1 He must be a 1 give “3 pictu' colourings is to their meat combinations. With the most external obje Thus Bowring praise associations betwee emphasis on the cor Wpoiicy of link between the p M more often their ordinary ima S associatiou than I In the M the W est - w, l , J . “65min 0hr] BOWU 21nd \Q 81. which seems a combination of animal and intellectual, not easily calculated. Besides pleasing the reader's speech and hearing through the effective repetition of language, Bowring contends that the poet gratifies the reader's eye with a descriptive picture because pleasure can be conveyed more effectively by the visual than by other impressions. The eye is a far nobler inlet of pleasure than the ear. He must be a painter as well as a musician. He must give us pictures. The actual Sight of lovely forms and colourings is beyond his art; but he must stimulate us to their mental reproduction and that in new and becoming combinations. His words Should be such as are associated with the most common and most vivid recollections of those external objects whose presence most gratifies the senses. 2 Thus Bowring praises the common images with which the reader can form associations between the poet's works and his own experiences. This emphasis on the common rather than the ideal reflects the Westminster BEXEEEL§.POlicy of advocating a democratic or at least utilitarian link between the poet and the reader. The aristocratic Edinburgh EEXiEE more often suggested that the poet should express ideal rather than ordinary images that lead the reader to higher levels of association than his common experiences would provide. In the.92§££§£;x_§§yi§w H.N. Coleridge, like John Bowring in the Westminster, notes the commonality of experience between the . H lJohn Bowring, ”The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge, Esq., HEEEEEE§£§£_Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, p. 4. 2Ibid. associations of the that the language °3 associations from 11‘ poet should convey to activate aSSOCia whether or not the which to relate the You must thir suffer yourse opinion or fa mess, an uns< Like Bowring, H.N. versification in w] metrical harmony.2 Ohjects to embody how S.T. Coleridge or laws of the min and the material v lie leads us 3 Wham gui< and stalact: e lifts his admiration i Stars of et. With his 1111 nature, and spiri 82. associations of the poet and his reader. And as John Bowring suggests that the language of a poem should be such that the reader can form associations from it, H.N. Coleridge further develops the idea that the poet should convey clear and accurate images that enable the reader to activate associations that resemble the poet's chain of ideas Whether or not the reader has a common background of experience with which to relate the poet's imagery. You must think with him, must sympathize with him, must suffer yourself to be lifted out of your own school of opinion or faith, and fall back upon your own conscious- ness, an unsophisticated man. Like Bowring, H.N. Coleridge praises S.T. Coleridge's skill at versification in which he combines condensed meaning with perfect metrical harmony.2 As Bowring praised S.T. Coleridge's use of natural Objects to embody associations of ideas, H.N. Coleridge further explains how S.T. Coleridge's poems illustrate his reasoning from inner principles or laws of the mind to their expression in emblems of natural science and the material world to project a universal spirit beyond either. He leads us into the laboratories of art or nature as a showman guides you through a cavern crusted With spar. and stalactites, all cold, and dim, and motionless, till he lifts his torch aloft and on a sudden you gaze 1n admiration on walls and roof of flaming crystals and stars of eternal diamond. With his understanding of S.T. Coleridge's aSSOCiationS 0f mind, nature, and spirit, H.N. Coleridge is also the first of these reviewers lH.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," QEEEEEELX Review, Volume 52, August, 1834, p. 14- 21bid., p. 12. 31bid., p. 13. to express the probl to describe Coleridg hieroglyphics to den but H.N. Coleridge c words may not necess must guess this and experienced a corre; from Bowring on the Whereas Bowring con his owu chain of as attempt to reprodu< exPerieuce for a C( concrete emblems w WhEIeas John Coleridge's poems host and the made Coleridge Often f; whiCh the reader ( and common langua becauSe they do n critic contends t thfi the aSSOCiat .x . C . w! Ravile \Ew 2n ‘ COIEI' l 1d 834) p' 54 o g 83. to express the problem of language as an inadequate vehicle with which to describe Coleridge's evanescent thoughts. Words serve only as hieroglyphics to denote a state of mind that once existed in the poet, but H.N. Coleridge contends that language is inadequate because the words may not necessarily recall what that state was. The reader must guess this and judge for himself whether or not he has ever experienced a correSponding feeling.l Thus, H.N. Coleridge differs from Bowring on the reader's role in the interpretation of a poem. Whereas Bowring contends that the poet incites the reader to develop his own chain of associations, H.N. Coleridge suggests that the reader attempt to reproduce the poet's chain and then search his own experience for a corre5pondence. Both critics agree in praising the concrete emblems with which Coleridge expresses his ideas. Whereas John Bowring and H.N. Coleridge suggest ways that Coleridge's poems achieve a bond of common experience between the poet and the reader, an 1834 filagkwggdlg critic contends that Coleridge often fails to provide associative chains of ideas With which the reader can relate. Whereas Francis Jeffrey opposes the low and common language and emotions expressed in Coleridge's poems because they do not elevate the reader's associations, this glagkwggifli critic contends that Coleridge's poems are so PurifiEd and Spiritualized that the associations are above the sympathies of the multitudes.2 1H.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," QEQEEgglz Review, Volume 52, August, 1834, P- 34' 2"Coleridge's Poetical Works," Blackwood's, Volume 36’ October, 1834, p. 544. But the W those readers who 3 understanding peopl those of the multit The two Tory the most compliment H.N. Coleridge pays edition of the poet Bowriug's 3% tribute to Colerid appear to be a con kind of political magazines. As critics \ associations it c( reader, they also aid emotion that 0bjetted not Only to Convey the emo the? are less ref The love, c and refiner different : emotion fn a tradesma] E“ lFra-ncis J M w 84. But the Blackwood's reviewer cites the poem "Love” as being suited for those readers who are imaginative in all their happiness; the sensitive, understanding people whose associations of experience are tuned above those of the multitudes. The two Tory journals, Blackwood's and the Quarterly Review, offer the most compliments on the poetry of their fellow Tory Coleridge; and H.N. Coleridge pays tribute to his uncle as well as plugging his own edition of the poet's works. Second to the Tory journals, John Bowring's Westminster Review is the most complimentary with his personal tribute to Coleridge; but Bowring's effort to make the poet's philosophy appear to be a consistent representation of utilitarianism is a different kind of political partisanship from those reflected in the other magazines. As critics viewed the language of Coleridge's poetry for the associations it could arouse in the reader and its influence on the reader, they also criticized the associations of ideas of intellect and emotion that the poems were intended to convey. Francis Jeffrey objected not only to the low language but also to the poet's attempts to convey the emotions of the common people for the same reasons; they are less refined, and art should portray what is excellent.' The love, or grief, or indignation of an enlightened and refined character, is not only expressed in a different language, but is in itself a different emotion from the love or grief, or anger of a clown, a tradesman, or a market wench. lFrancis Jeffrey, ”Thalaba the Destroyer: A Metrical Romance," Edinburgh Review, Volume I, October, 1802, p. 66- Like Jeffrey, ‘ inferior 333°Ciatiom imagination, “113°“ even fancy or “out, senses who expresses Wilson considers "1K love is conveyed by ninstrel rather that imaginative rating suggests that the t of Opposites. C016 the poet of light % Some of the perspective in the John Wilson conclu and superior to Be influence of earli Poets like Coleri. influence their r to their emotions '0' by argument c mind of the reads 1 C JOhn Wils Cleridge n B]. 3 3C 31an zdohn Wile I hood 8) V0] 85. Like Jeffrey, John Wilson also says that Coleridge portrays inferior associations. Although Coleridge's poems associate sense with imagination, Wilson contends that it is not the highest imagination or even fancy or emotion. Wilson says Coleridge is a musical poet of the senses who expresses love in terms of the senses instead of the passions.1 Wilson considers "Love" Coleridge's best poem because although Genevieve's love is conveyed by the senses, Coleridge describes how she looks to the minstrel rather than how she feels Wilson does give Coleridge a higher imaginative rating in comparison with William Lisle Bowles. Wilson suggests that the two poets admired one another because of an attraction of opposites. Coleridge is the dark, imaginative poet; and Bowles is the poet of light and love.2 Some of the critics also attempted to provide an historical perspective in their evaluations of Coleridge's poetry. For example, John Wilson concludes that Coleridge's poetry is inferior to Milton's and superior to Bowles', whereas J.T. Coleridge attempts to note the influence of earlier poets like Shakespeare and Milton on contemporary poets like Coleridge. The earlier poets, according to J.T. Coleridge, influence their readers not by swaying their reason but by appealing to their emotions. Modern poets noticed that this effect was achieved not by argument or description but by causing an association in the mind of the reader that awakened his imagination and caused it to make lJohn Wilsan, "Essays on the Lake School of Poetry, No. 111-— Coleridge," Blackwood's,Vohmua6, October, 1819, p. 11. 2John Wilson, "The Missionary; A Poem. BY the REV~ W.L. BOWleS," Blackwood's, Volume 6, October, 1819, P- 13- acreation of its (H the poet's original related emotional re Coleridge contends t because the habit oi reflection of excess theorized that the 1 note important they poet‘s peISpective. Wit than they actu fithmted to analyz in their POP—ms inst the mind. J~T. Co Conway general hum emotions Which mig phil°5°PhY and to nature . J. T . C016 0083.11 and Small hi lmnatural and str The maiorit- bi'dS' Mist Emot10n liv Surprised u much SEHSat Cause, The lJT C ' ' ' Ole: second Editiot, ” 86. a creation of its own. Understanding this, contemporary poets extended the poet's original role to guide the imaginative associations and the related emotional.re8ponses of the reader. For this reason, J.T. Coleridge contends that metaphysics ceased to be an advantage to poets because the habit of analyzing one's own emotion can result in a reflection of excessive emotionalism in the poetry. J.T. Coleridge theorized that the more closely one examines his OWn emotions, the more important they become to him, and this magnification warps the poet's perspective. Thus, small emotional attitudes loom larger to the poet than they actually are. Therefore, poets like Coleridge who attempted to analyze their emotions became lost in the transient details in their poems instead of painting the strong and permanent feelings of the mind. J.T. Coleridge suggests, then, that the ideal poem would convey general human emotion, and poets err by exaggerating individual emotions which might also lead the poet to erroneous conclusions in philosophy and to imaginatively exaggerate associations describing nature. J.T. Coleridge declares that the poets picture a lake as an ocean and small hills as mountains, and this exaggeration appears unnatural and strained or fictitious to the reader.1 The majority of their readers have passed glowworms and birds' nests, celandines and daisies, without any emotion lively enough to be remembered; and they are surprised unfairly perhaps, but not unnaturally, that so much sensation should be attributed to so trifling a cause. They lose their fellowship of interest with the lJ.T. Coleridge, "The Remorse. A Tragedy. By S.T. Coleridge. Second Edition," Quarterly Review, Volume 11, April, 1814, p. 179. poet and are t1 the poem. Besides the Poets' t‘ J.T. Coleridge: like feelings in inanimat from a comparison be ocean has a heart at use of nature t00 f‘ Whereas J .T. should not personif the level of societ low language level Wordsworth annormo persuaded Jeffrey We more sensitive Coleridge, on the on abstruse metapi comprehension for hnerested in net PWtiC principles 'EPTESent the get Francis Jeffrey ( 1 J-T. Cole Second Edition " 21bid \‘9 p- 87. poet and are therefore.at the best but uninterested by the poem. Besides the poets' tendency to individual false or exaggerated emotion, J.T. Coleridge, like Francis Jeffrey, criticizes them for personifying feelings in inanimate beings. The critics would accept analogies drawn from a comparison between humanity and nature, but to declare that the ocean has a heart and all accompanying emotions carries the metaphorical use of nature too far. Whereas J.T. Coleridge and Francis Jeffrey agree that poets should not personify feelings in inanimate beings, they disagree on the level of society with which Coleridge's poetry communicates. The low language level and common subject matter that Coleridge and Wordsworth announced in Wordsworth's introduction to Lyrical Ballads persuaded Jeffrey that the poets' democratic sympathies were beneath the more sensitive understanding of the upper levels of society. J.T. Coleridge, on the other hand, criticizes the poets for principles based on abstruse metaphysics that sacrifice associations of universal comprehension for the favor of an exclusive few readers who are interested in metaphysics. Instead, J.T. Coleridge feels that imaginative poetic principles should be drawn from philosophical principles that represent the general feelings common to all peOple, a level that Francis Jeffrey denied the poets' right to seek in worthwhile poetry.2 lJ.T. Coleridge, ”The Remorse. A Tragedy. By S.T. Coleridge. Second Edition,” Quarterly Review, Volume 11, April, 1814, p. 181. 21bid. , p. 179. rlhese crit: before 1820 have fact that the B_L My essay o Both Tory public. attitude, but Sp‘ are more negativ‘ however, the poe By 1830 Jo of ideas, and he that the reader! frama that condo to a catastrOphe feelings that sh world, a dramatj when inner fEelj or drama Blight j external circumg its history, it: destiny) must p' Wistlom_lll Like nature ConVeys mankind . l he John Bow St' %@ 88. These criticisms of Coleridge‘s associations of emotion written before 1820 have a predominantly negative evaluation in Spite of the fact that the Blackwood's essay praises Coleridge as a poet and the .guarterly essay was written by J.T. Coleridge, the poet's nephew. Both Tory publications appear to praise the Tory poet in their overall attitude, but specific criticisms that actually evaluate the poetry are more negative. As with the criticism of Coleridge's language, however, the poet receives more positive evaluations in later years. By 1830 John Bowring has developed a theory of the association of ideas, and he applies it in Coleridge's poetry. Bowring suggests that the reader's interest and pleasure are excited by a narrative or drama that conducts him through the experience of a train of events to a catastrophe. Bowring regards this drama as defined and contrasted feelings that shadow forth the strivings of the external and literal world, a dramatic process that reverses the modern concept of symboliSm when inner feelings are concretized in external events. The narrative or drama might include a mental progression of events as well as external circumstances; "but truth to human nature, its constitution, its history, its strengths and weaknesses, its capabilities and its destiny, must prevail whether in fiction, comedy, or philosophical wisdom. "1 Like J.T. Coleridge Bowring emphasizes that truth to human nature conveys experiences generally recognizable as common to all mankind. lJohn Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Colefidge, Esq.," Westminster Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, p. 5. As examples ideas of emotion : the popular "Love Coleridge does no argues that Coler praises the chair "impulses of soul were part of a c] M“SillgS” Bowring fellow beings. is conveyed in t The p of happine of self b} Suffering: imatinati. the regul imPulse t being, is BeSides t Musings,” BOer' thought and Gun ideas follow t] to the mind of of thought and Spare and time RE . lJOhn B( Vlew) Volum. N 0" 11a [ 3 31b ,4. d /_ 3 89 0 As examples of Coleridge's ability to express associations of ideas of emotion in poetry, Bowring cites several short poems including the popular "Love." Like the other critics, Bowring suggests that Coleridge does not express the true language of passion. Bowring argues that Coleridge analyzes love in metaphysical terms. But Bowring praises the chain of associations in "Love" because they combine "impulses of soul and sense" as correctly and completely as if they 1 . . were part of a chapter of Hartley or Brown. In the poem "Religious Musings" Bowring makes an association of the idea of self and one's fellow beings. Bowring believes the primiple of Coleridge's morality is conveyed in this poem. The principle of our author's morality, the pursuit 0f happiness by its diffusion, the expansion of the idea of self by the agency of sympathy, the realizing of the sufferings or enjoyments of our fellow beings in the imagination until they come to constitute our own, assume the regulation of our feelings, give the prevailing impulse to our actions, and form the end and aim of our " being, is also clearly stated in the "Religious MuSings. Besides the emotions of love and sympathy in "Love" and "Religious Musings," Bowring describes "Fears in Solitude" as a narrative of thought and emotion with an unbroken chain of associations in which the ideas follow the natural succession in which they would present themselves to the mind of a man of genius.3 Bowring traces the chain of associations of thought and emotion as the movement of the poem progresses through 8Pace and time. - ll ‘ lJohn Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge, KE§EE£E§ESE BEXiQE, Volume 12, January, 1830, p. 16. 21bid., p. 18. 3Ibid., p. 11. The feeling painful sym hension, so triumph, ca ends in the affection. Bowring notes the feelings permits reader. The ace the Poet's train and satisfied sy and enlightened JOhn Bowrj excite the reads higher moral in: metaphysns. T Who thonght a u of emotion Li cluality of (101‘ the Pattern of they Were Orig associated i de of both the pt belieVeS Cole] irresiStible l Revieleghn B ‘\~\c» Olum 21bid, \ x 90. The feeling varies from passive, dreamy reverie, t0' painful sympathy, burning indignation, trembling appre— hension, solemn supplication, animated appeal, tempered triumph, calm expostulation, devout confidence, till.it ends in the contemplative enjoyment of benevolent affection. Bowring notes that this poetic chain of the author's thoughts and feelings permits a similar train of thought to be produced in the reader. The accumulated effect experienced by the reader in following the poet's train of thought and emotion, according to Bowring, is glad and satisfied sympathy with the poet, a feeling that subsides into calm and enlightened enjoyment. John Bowring contends that associations of ideas of emotion excite the reader's imagination, thought, and emotion and lead to a higher moral inspiration when these associations are based on metaphysics. This theory is in oppositiontn that of J.T. Coleridge who thought a metaphysical basis could lead to error in the expression of emotion. Like H.N. Coleridge Bowring believes the individual quality of Coleridge's poems is that the associations of ideas reflect the Pattern of ideas that flowed through his individual mind after they were originally motivated by some scene or occurrence.2 These associated ideas stimulate the intellectual, poetic, and moral qualities of both the poet and his reader. To achieve this purpose, Bowring believes Coleridge selects terms of peculiar appropriateness and irresistible power for "thoughts that breathe, and words that burn." lJohn Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," HEéEEiEEEEE Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, p- 11- 2Ibid., p. 24. 'Ihey convey convey it u associatior call up. heat are 11 Clearly, t] of the poem were the reader. Bow fellow Tory poet thmugh superior contrast, sugges Tory poet lowere B. C( The assoc critiCiSm of Co shorter Poems, natural and Ode thOSe POSSible reviewers ekac Poetic language tone and Ordin; Political View: democratic bel intereSt Criti J0 B REView) VOle-l: 91. They convey the truth precisely and completely; and they convey it with all those melancholy, tender, or joyous associations which it is the poet's especial business tO' call up. They are like sunbeams; and their light and heat are inseparable. Clearly, the emotional associations projected by the imagery of the poem were what most concerned critics in terms of the effect on the reader. Bowring and the Tory reviewers tended to believe their fellow Tory poet presented emotions that would elevate the reader through superior associations. The Whig Edinburgh reviewers, in contrast, suggested that the low and common ideas expressed by the Tory poet lowered the quality of the reader's associations. B. Coleridge's Odes and Poems of the Supernatural The association of ideas critical theory underscored much of the criticism of Coleridge's poetry, but it was most fully applied to the shorter poems, particularly "Love." Coleridge's poems of the super— natural and odes required other kinds of critical evaluations besides those possible within the association of ideas framework. Many reviewers expected the ode to portray an idealized subject in lofty Poetic language. These critics often objected to the conversational tone and ordinary subject matter of "Dejection: an Ode" and the political views expressed in "France: An Ode." However, the democratic beliefs that Coleridge presents in this poem continue to interest critics who wish to support the contention that Coleridge's lJohn Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," KEEEEEEEEEE Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, p- 22' character was we conservative. A praised for its gives "Dejection critics seemed t contemporary int in the years aft The super: I'Kubla Khan," a1 COler-idge's ther C011161 evaluate readers Within the theory that in the reader, Wefikness in "Th mom; and the moraliZe' 0the Coleridge's pre Partially ”mp whether this In Another Proble was publiShed. should have be of cOlenuge'c 92. character was weak because he changed from a democrat t0'a Tory conservative. Among Coleridge's supporters "France: An Ode” is praised for its poetry, and only nephew Hartley Nelson Coleridge gives "Dejection: An Ode" a higher rating in this respect.. Most critics seemed to prefer "France: An Ode" because the topic was of contemporary interest. Consequently, this poem received less praise in the years after Coleridge's death. The supernatural aspects of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Kubla Khan," and "Christabel" necessitated coming to grips with Coleridge's theory of a willing suspension of disbelief before critics could evaluate the emotional associations that might be possible for readers within the imagery and subject matter of the poems. And under the theory that the best poetry in some way leads to moral improvement in the reader, critics had to reconcile Coleridge's statement that a weakness in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” was that it had too much moral; and the best poetry, according to S.T. Coleridge, should not moralize. Other critical problems relating to these poems were Coleridge's prefatory statement that "Kubla Khan" was at least partially composed in a dream or a deep reverie. Critics debated whether this method of poetic composition was actually possible. Another problem was the fragmentary condition in which "Christabel" was published. Critics debated whether or not the poem could or should have been finished. This question was tied with the issue of Coleridge's decaying poetic genius, whether leaving the poem a fragment might b« from writing poe Although C ofits contempor and "Ode to the group in 1834 in hhégg and Elesh cmhlimentary to C01eridge's odes other poems. lh Sublime becauSe the other-World] acWing to th:” themSelves. The on creative Spj best poe“? mus1 that an Ode be : critic indicate; manifested by a the passmg awa Thus, for the 13 cast in a tradi lu C01eri' 1832,, p. 560. c 21bid. \3p 93. fragment might be a sign of a weak character, and why Coleridge turned from writing poetry to studying metaphysics. Although Coleridge's "France: An Ode" was widely known because of its contemporary subject matter, this ode and "Dejection: An Ode" and "Ode to the Departing Year" only received critical treatment as a group in 1834 in the Tory tributes to S.T. Coleridge in the Quarterly Review and Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. In spite of the complimentary tone of these two essays both critics agree that Coleridge's odes are of lesser poetic quality than some of Coleridge's other poems. The Blackwood's critic believes the odes are less than sublime because they are too closely anchored in reality to achieve the other-worldly sublimity that an ode should have. The best odes, according to this critic, describe subjects apart from the poets themselves. The poet should make himself felt only in his "pervading and creative Spirit." Also, the Blackwood's critic asserts that the best poetry must be original; and the traditional ode form requires that an ode be imitative.l Besides these deficiencies, the Blackwood's critic indicates that odes achieve a mood of false enthusiasm manifested by a grossly exaggerated feeling which, supposedly, follows the passing away of the poet's vision but does not reflect true faith. Thus, for the Blackwood's critic, the fact that Coleridge's poems were cast in a traditional ode form made them unacceptable. l"Coleridge's Poetical Works," Blackwood's, Volume 36, October, 1834, p. 560. 21131.1. , p. 557. H.N. Coleri Coleridge to use organize his poen Coleridge also de heroic poem in t] Coleridge's beli' Although "France thatit is a less is more passiona Imcertain that h the Passionate_2 Year" is more v; Slibtle and abst: these two Odes 1 does not Slip 1 the other Poems imaginatiVe Sha imaginative qua Shakespeare. 1 Minor objectim 94. H.N. Coleridge did believe the ode form was appropriate for S.T. Coleridge to use because of his introsPective nature and tendency to organize his poems on the basis of an inward meaning.l However, H.N. Coleridge also declares that S.T. Coleridge was unable to produce an heroic poem in the manner of Milton, a comment which indicates H.N. Coleridge's belief that the ode is really an inferior poetic form. Although "France: An Ode" is a complete poem, H.N. Coleridge observes An Ode" thatitis a less perfect poetic compositions because "France: is more passionate than imaginative. H.N. Coleridge is somewhat uncertain that he is right to value the imaginative poetry higher than the passionate.2 Nonetheless, he concludes that "Ode on the Departing Year" is more varied and brilliant, and "Dejection: An Ode" is more subtle and abstract. H.N. Coleridge rates ”Dejection" higher between these two odes because it is consistently poetry rather than oratory and does not slip into the kind of declamation that frequently occurs in the other poems.3 The Blackwood's critic also praises Coleridge's imaginative shaping ability in "Dejection: An Ode," and he rates this imaginative quality as being equal to the poetry of Wordsworth and Shakespeare. In spite of this, the Blackwood's critic has several minor objections. He contends that the fanciful reference to "The grand old ballad of Sir Patrick Spens" is out of keeping with the character lH.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," QEEEEEELX Review, Volume 52, August, 1834, p- 18- 2Ibid., p. 32. 31bid., p. 33. of an ode, and t "Much-a—do about Wind beginning ' hopes to make ht ode's high and : matter were the were not concer form. This M Departing Year. Patriotism and is false, hollc Tnat the Empres as a Suitable 5 declamation abt Calling up gho: bleed and Clam Whereas evaluated Cole discover Wayst "Christabel," 95. of an ode, and the storm is described as a fanciful but not imaginative "Much—a—do about Nothing." The critic also believes the passage on the wind beginning "Mad Lutanist!" and ending "And now screams loud, and hopes to make her mother hear," is too quaint for a composition of an ode's high and solemn character.l Because elevated language and subject matter were the primary requirements for excellence among odes, critics were not concerned with whether they were in the Pindaric or Homeric form. This Blackwood's critic raises similar objections to "Ode on the Departing Year." Although this poem expresses the individual's patriotism and citizenship, the critic believes the argument of the ode is false, hollow, and delusive——without the true spirit of prophecy. That the Empress of Russia died of apoplexy does not strike the critic as a suitable subject for exultation, particularly in Coleridge's declamation about undignified violence. For the Blackwood's critic, calling up ghosts should have a prephetic quality unmixed with realistic blood and clammy corpses.2 Whereas critics had a traditional ode form against which they evaluated Coleridge's odes and found them deficient, they had to discover waysto evaluate the supernatural poems: "Kubla Khan," "Christabel,” and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." The most widely known of the three poems was "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" because l"Coleridge's Poetic Works," Blackwood's, Volume 36, October, 1834, p. 544. 21bid., p. 555—556. this pool attrac1 part of the L1r_i_t its most severe : who described th poem subsequentl by John Wilson t JOhn Bowring in in 1832, and cr: Thus, during Co given this poem Although it was first pa and TECEived it Ancient Marine] Close aSSOCiatt receind, firs with a r‘3View W M Sterling in tt t0 Critics dU] 96. this poem attracted much critical attention when it was reviewed as part of the'Lyrical Ballads in 1798. .At that time the poem received its most severe notice from Coleridge's brother—in-law Robert Southey, who described the poem as "A Dutch attempt at German sublimity." The poem subsequently was parodied in Blackwood's in 1819 and criticized by John Wilson the same year. After that the poem was criticized by John Bowring in the Westminster Review in 1830, parodied in Blackwood's in 1832, and criticized in the Quarterly and Blackwood's in 1834. Thus, during Coleridge's lifetime both the negative and positive attention given this poem came from politically sympathetic journals. Although "Christabel" had circulated in manuscript after 1800, it was first published with "Kubla Khan" and "Pains of Sleep” in 1816 and received its first reviews at that time. Just as the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" received its worst initial review from Coleridge's close associate, Robert Southey in 1798, so these poems were negatively received, first with a parody in the Tory Quarterly Review, and then with a review by Coleridge's former friend William Hazlitt in the Edinburgh Review.l ”Christabel" received favorable criticism by John Sterling in the Athenaeum in 1828, but "Kubla Khan" remained a puzzle to critics during Coleridge's lifetime. lElizabeth Schneider, "The unknown Reviewer of Christabel: Jeffrey, Hazlitt, Tom Moore," PMLA, Vol. 70 (1955), p. 417—432. Miss Schneider contends that Moore, rather than Jeffrey or Hazlitt, reviwed the book of three poems. Her opinion rests on the style of the article which, she says, has the savagery characteristic of Moore. Also, Jeffrey denied writing the article, and Coleridge's word is the main source of authority. Coleridge's interest than the such moonscious Coleridge's stor an anodyne. 11:12 the poem from be is more of a psy "Kubla Khan" am As this 1816 Q Why in these forthright in p‘ his lifetime. Words expressiv antagonism is f one of ti the press EXlDErimeI undersm After Ha nightmare, a Q Conjuring note “Cited by a r lWillim of SIQEPI Bv 1816) p. 14,“ 21bid. \ s 97. Coleridge’s preface to "Kubla Khan" attracted more critical interest than the poem itself as critics debated the feasibility of such unconscious poetic creation. William Hazlitt recounts S.T. Coleridge's story that the poem was written under the influence of an anodyne. Hazlitt contends that the interruption that prevented the poem from being finished was not a tragedy because "Kubla Khan" is more of a psychological curiosity than a poem.1 Hazlitt attributes "Kubla Khan" and "Pains of Sleep” to the nightmares of a drug addict. As this 1816 Edinburgh review is the first review of Coleridge's poetry in these journals, it is also the most negative and the most forthright in publicly noting S.T. Coleridge's opium addiction during his lifetime. Hazlitt considers ”Kubla Khan" as ”mere raving incoherent words expressive of extravagance and incongruity." And Hazlitt's antagonism is further reflected in his declaration that the poem is one of the most notable pieces of impertinence of which the press has lately been guilty; and one of the boldest experiments that has yet bee made on the patience or understanding of the public. After Hazlitt's assessment of "Kubla Khan" as an opium induced nightmare, a Quarterly Review article on a book about witchcraft and conjuring notes a story of a sorceress who created poetry in a dream excited by a narcotic, and the reviewer declares that "Kubla Khan" was 1William Hazlitt, "Christabel; Kubla Khan, a Vision. The Pains of Sleep. By S.T. Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 27, September, 1816, p. 14. 21bid., p. 58. s l i i composed imder sin poem as an "extra from this morbid that Coleridge's was Coleridge's c tale of the poem‘ believes the poet associations bec‘ Like "Kubl the“ was praised to Say "Kubla Kb eventually decic‘ interpretation, was extensively parody of "Chri Coleridge‘s nam remarks that "T its model "Chri poetry" Over ti poem} Hazlit‘ even mere Savai and Geraldine 1n Su 18233 p. 4igirs 2n Th 9. 473, e P“ 98. composed under similar circumstances. This 1823. review describes the cen as an "extraordina and authentic instance of the ener arisin P ry gy g 1 from this morbid excitement of the mind." In 1830 John Bowring suggests that Coleridge's description of images rising up before him as things was Coleridge's common method of poetic creation. Bowring repeats the tale of the poem's unconscious composition without comment, but he believes the poem has no meaning and gives the reader pleasurable associations because of the music of its words. Like "Kubla Khan", "Christabel" was first attacked by critics and then was praised during Coleridge's lifetime. However, critics continued to say "Kubla Khan" was beautiful but meaningless music whereas they eventually decided that "Christabel" could be given a meaningful interpretation, although the poem, like "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," was extensively parodied. In 1816 the Quarterly_Reyiew published a parody of "Christabel" in a review of Hogg's_1he Poetic Mirror. S.T. Coleridge's name is unflatteringly misspelled "Colridge." The reviewer remarks that "The Lady Isabell" is as wandering and unintelligible as its model "Christabel," but S.T. Coleridge does scatter "flowers of Poetry" over the dark pall that covers and conceals the meaning of his Poem.2 Hazlitt's Edinburgh Review essay of the same year includes an even more savage prose parody and the suggestion that after Christabel and Geraldine drink the wine made by Christabel's mother, their actions 1823 l"Szp:rstition and Knowledge," Quarterly Review, Volume 29, July, a p. . 2"The Poetic Mirror," Quarterly Review, Volume 25, July, 1816, P. 473. are motivated by meaningless sect: and transitions; method of comti Coleridge claims composition. In 1819 Jc but Wilson belie "Christabel" to the best concept “1311 0f talent w to execute them in fragmentary of the poem the internal eVil; lmlgmage of "Cl form of the p 0‘ incidents are ‘ which the mad through th e W 99. are motivated by drunkenness.l Hazlitt believes the poem contains meaningless sections and inadequate motivations of characters, actions, and transitions;.besides which, Hazlitt contends that Coleridge's poetic method of counting accents instead of syllables is not original, as Coleridge claims, but rather is a return to a traditional mode of poetic composition. In 1819 John Wilson predominantly praises Coleridge as a poet, but Wilson believes Coleridge was too passive because he allowed "Christabel" to be published as a fragment. Wilson acknowledges that the best conceptions and designs are frequently those which occur to a man of talent without painful searching, but they require exerting will to execute them, a will that Coleridge lacked because he left the poem in fragmentary form.2 Wilson admiringly quotes some descriptive parts of the poem that, he suggestsane a contrast between external beauty and internal evil; but Wilson concludes that neither the incidents nor the language of "Christabel” can be fairly judged because the fragmentary form of the poem does not permit the reader to determine where the poem's incidents are supposed to lead.3 The poem is an imaginative effort in which the reader's imaginative vision must link with that of the poet through the poetic associations. Wilson praises these associations lWilliam Hazlitt, "Christabel: Kubla Khan, A Vision. The Pains of :legp. By S.T. Coleridge," Edinbuggh_§eyigw, Volume 27, September, 1816, 2John Wilson, "Essays on the Lake School of Poetry, No. III—— Coleridge," Blackwood's,Volume 6, October, 1819, p. 8. 31bid., p. 11. because they an but he qualifie: total poem. In before 1820 two publications. two Tory journa ISOlated lines 50% aspects 01 M. After the the first unde: July 2, 1828, i; Entitled "me assures the re Netty that he repeateu, Fir mYths relating Deems inVOlvir written during a prObable lat there is 110 n objectioHS Ca who Charged t 100. because they are on a somewhat higher level than sense impressions, but he qualifies his evaluation because they are parts of an incomplete total poem. In spite of such qualifications, it is significant that before 1820 two out of the three reviews of "Christabel" are in Tory publications. All three reviews are somewhat negative although the two Tory journals manage to find some positive qualities in the poem. Isolated lines are praised in the Quarterly criticism and parody, and some aspects of Coleridge's imaginative vision are praised in Black— aw; After these three largely negative reviews, John Sterling wrote the first understanding and sympathetic review of "Christabel" for the July 2, 1828,issue of the Athenaeum. Although the article is playfully entitled "From Philip Drunk to Philip Sober," the reviewer seriously assures the readers that he is repeating defenses of Coleridge's poetry that he has given many times before and that deserve to be repeated. First of all, Sterling defends Coleridge's wrifing about myths relating demonic terrors and wizard enchantment. Because no poems involving such popular superstitions or feudal manners had been written during the preceding fifty years, the critic believes there is a probable lack of enthusiasm for such poetry among poets and that there is no ready audience. Nonetheless, Sterling believes such objections can be overcome, and he attempts to refute earlier critics who charged that the poem is realistically unbelievable. By exercising a willing Susper accepted as a t: like "Mastiff B: Another r is Coleridge's comterfeit ter Sterling inter; evil powers cor and Submitted 1 omens of naturt ladies enter t‘ fiend When Ger Christabel] comes to prote Them Steilimg‘ Part I which 1 ignores the 0. fragmentary na and eXPressim “flit? of the Six Yea critics who ‘ lJohn , Philip SOber 211m. 311m. 101. a willing Suspension of disbelief, he contends, the poem can be accepted as a tale of witchery. A secondary objection to language like "Mastiff Bitch" is dismissed as boarding—school-miss delicacy.l Another realistic aSpect of the poem, according to Sterling, is Coleridge's portrayal of Geraldine as a liar whose attempts to counterfeit terror diSplay a convincing psychological accuracy. Sterling interprets the poem's motivation as an ancient belief that evil powers could harm no one who had not consented to their design and submitted to their influence. According to this theory, the omens of nature reflect a supernatural and evil presense when the two ladies enter the castle. The fire recognizes the presence of the fiend when Geraldine enters, and the hearth cries out to warn Christabel.2 In the scene where the spirit of Christabel's dead mother comes to protect her child, Sterling praises the fitness of the words. Then Sterling's criticism jumps from this scene to the conclusion of Part I which he calls the conclusion of the entire poem. Sterling ignores the other two parts of the poem and does not mention its flagmentary nature. Instead, he praises the beauty of single lines and expressions that are perfect in themselves and as part of the unity of the poem's general effect.3 Six years later, H.N. Coleridge represents the school of critics who contend that "Christabel" is better left unfinished lJohn Sterling, "An Appeal Apologetic, From Philip Drunk to Philip Sober," Athenaeum, No. 36, July 2, 1828, p. 567. Zip g,, p. 567. 31bid., p. 568. because the them snapping. The p but complete as H.N. Coleridge p Ancient MarinerI of the wild and by daylight. B SuPel'natural is clear than at m shielded by the "Christabel" di color, and effe feudal and mm The folh Celeridge stupj Question Canno hEIieVes the m but Mt ehl>lai the reader's e and geod in t1 earlier critiy lH,\i he wimp 2n Cole: l83h3 p. 5 3. 31nd,! \ 102. because the theme is too fine and Subtle to be Spun out further without snapping. The poem remains imperfect as a story, H.N. Coleridge believes, but complete as an exquisite production of the imagination. In fact, H.N. Coleridge praises "Christabel" as superior to "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in that "Christabel" reveals a more skillful mastery of the wild and preternatural because it succeeds in displaying witchery by daylight. H.N. Coleridge suggests that developing a sense of the supernatural is more difficult in the daylight when natural objects are clear than at night when mysterious circumstances can be suggested and shielded by the darkness. Furthermore, H.N. Coleridge suggests that "Christabel" differs from "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in form, color, and effect because the imaginative faculty is directed to the feudal and mundane phases of the preternatural. The following month in 1834 a Blackwood's critic ponders why Coleridge stopped writing such poetry only to conclude that the question cannot be answered and really does not matter.2 This critic believes the mood of superstition or fear in "Christabel" can be felt but not explained because Coleridge sets up and Sustains a tension in the reader's emotions as he is pulled toward opposite poles of evil and good in the attitudes of Geraldine and Christabel.3 Although earlier critics speculated on whether a poem should enable the reader lH.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 52, August, 1834, P- 30- 2"Coleridge's Poetical Works," Blackwood's, Volume 36, October, 1834, p. 563. 3rbid., p. 565. to duplicate the associations of is the first to reader by a pole that both "Chris imaginative dre; associated with the charge that Organization. dream world is Consistent With Thus, aft the 906m is in Without motiVay SHVage Whig E the P0em that thEOIies. Wit the poem as ps that the Poem on the aSSumpy “satiation. C01min the Ancient M 103. to duplicate the poet's associations of emotions or to form.new associations of emotions from the reader's own experience, this critic is the first to suggest a polarity of emotion to be achieved in the reader by a polarity of associations in the poem itself. He concludes that both "Christabel" and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" are imaginative dream worlds that are not organized on the principles associated with the ordinary world of reality. But the critic refutes the charge that this imaginative dream world is without laws and organization. Rather, the Blackwood's reviewer believes a poet's dream world is as obedient to laws as a philosopher's meditation is consistent with itself as Speculative thought. Thus, after initial crificisms of "Christabel" that suggest that the poem is fragmentary and without meaning and the characters are without motivation in the Tory Quarterly and Blackwood's and the more savage Whig Edinburgh essays, critics after 1820 developed theories of the poem that they were able to reconcile with contemporary critical theories. With a willing suSpension of disbelief, Sterling can accept the poem as psychologically true to reality, H.N. Coleridge can conclude that the poem is better because it was left as a fragment, and the Blackwood's critic can even provide an association of ideas explanation on the assumption that a poet's dream world has its own laws and organization. Coleridge's best known poem of the supernatural, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," was viciously parodied in Blackwood's in 1819 ; l l l ‘; and again in 18 tells a tailor killing a goose of the gloss as Part Fourt 011! Freedom is And tailor, I'd rather in a Than in a dung This gloss hum Critique of Co poem that had } Was later remo essays on "The but most parod This parody a] Coleridge's pc Without being Particular em to Mrs' Barbat to a final St the wedding p Wall. MO ra le S the f The (1a: 0f thOSe, th And keg SUQh i 1A»L. 1 to D-M. MOir ZHThe 1819) p. 373 104. and again in 1832. The 1819 parody in which a drunken wagon master tells a tailor about over-turning his wagon and being punished for killing a goose diSplays considerable understanding of the contribution of the gloss as an external voice commenting on the action of the poem. Part Fourth Oh! Freedom is a glorious thing!-- The wag— And tailor, by the bye, gonere maketh I'd rather in a halter swing, ane shrewd ob— Than in a dungeon lie. servation. This gloss humorously provides an external voice and is the only critique of Coleridge's poem that reflects this 1817 revision of the poem that had been published in 1798 with the archaic spelling that was later removed and without the gloss that was later added. Other essays on "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" ignored the gloss altogether, but most parodies retained an imitation of the original archaic Spelling. This parody also relates nature and psychology in the manner of Coleridge's poem when the parody has an artificial eclipse occur without being noted in "The Belfaste Almanacke." As the critics paid particular attention to Coleridge's poetic moral and noted his comment to Mrs. Barbauld that the poem has too much moral, the parody builds to a final stanza that expresses its moral after the tailor rejoins the wedding party and then falls and fractures his skull against a wall. Morale Such is the fate of foolish men, The danger all may see, Of those, who list to waggoneres, And keepe bade companye.2 lA.L. Strout, Blackwood's Bibliography, p. 50 attributes this parody to D.M. Moir although it is signed with the initials M.O. 2"The Rime of the Ancient Waggonere," Blackwood's, Volume 4, February, 1819, p. 573. Interestingly, t John Wilson's C} Wilson describe felt rather the accept the poem disbelief. Wil imagery and red eat, blind and language is jm guest in a man the tale. The natural 18dund disturbed that The theory of TeViewer to s Wilson bEIiev Supefnatural poem Satisfie life is bIOu; Suffering; an All of of accountin JOhn Coleridge 3n 105. Interestingly, this parody reflects more understanding of the poem than John Wilson's critical essay in the same magazine eight months later. Wilson describes the poem as a wild, imaginative vision that is to be felt rather than described with words.1 Therefore, the.reader must accept the poem as a lovely dream through a willing suspension of disbelief. Wilson.believes the poem's flaws are its superfluous imagery and redundant language that make the poem.shadowy and incoher— ent, blind and withnt purpose. Wilson claims that the redundant language is justified because the mariner is talking to the wedding guest in a manner that had developed through frequent repetitions of the tale. The imagery thus reflects having been built up into a natural redundancy. Like many later interpreters, Wilson is also disturbed that killing a bird could cause such extensive retribution. The theory of the willing suspension of disbelief enables the reviewer to suggest associations of ideas in the poem on two levels. Wilson believes the reader receives associations of ideas of the supernatural and of the melody of the words. The conclusion of the poem satisfies the critic because he believes the surface of actual life is brought closer to the life of sentiment through the mariner's suffering; another world is revealed through his eyes. All of the critics of tbs era were presented with the problem of accounting for what kind of improvement the reader could receive 1John Wilson, "Essays on the Lake School of Poetry. No. III-- Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 6, October, 1819, p. 5. through poems ab that the reader suspension of dj associations jus which he was far with the poem bl John Bowring is teach all men " loveth."l Bow: Succession of I Strokes. Bowrj emotions aSCril natural Worlds natural World, and bold imagi With this thec reader about I POEtry cofltaix greateSt happ improves the in the future a uretaphysiCE we _lJOhIl l w l 106. through poems abOut an unreal world. The conclusion they reached was that the reader could accept this unreal world through a willing Suspension of disbelief and then he would be able to form emotional associations just as he would in a poem about the natural world with which he was familiar. Whereas John Wilson expresses dissatisfaction with the poem because the penance was too great for killing a bird, John Bowring is satisfied that the mariner's penance is justified to teach all men "love and reverence to all things that God made and loveth."l Bowring also praises Coleridge's ability to paint a succession of rapid scenes with graphic power displayed in a few strokes. Bowring believes the power of the poem is the truth of emotions ascribed to the mariner, who links the natural and the super— natural worlds. The supernatural world unfolds and illustrates the natural world, according to Bowring, as Coleridge develops a wild and bold imaginative creation of the essential principles of humanity. With this theory of the supernatural world as a device to teach the reader about the natural world, Bowring contends that Coleridge's poetry contains a philosophy consistent with Bentham's theory of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And because a poem also improves the reader, it is useful to increase the general happiness in the future as well. Therefore, Bowring acknowledges Coleridge as a metaphysical and ethical teacher "after our own hearts because be 1John Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge, Esq.," Westminster Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, p. 27. understands and beings.“1 Intersper: of the Ancient l Blackwood‘s and another satire Britishers in g criticism in t1" Blackwond‘ s be( Satirist for s1 Well, whereas 1834 criticiSm Wilson‘s eSsay the poem but “ H-N. Col '00 much moraj reascms for w] Coleridge con Coleridge lis and hermit, t framewOrk of instead of "e W lJOhn ‘ W . 2.. . . Llw 1832: p. 957 107. understands and loves humanity and wishes to dignify and bless all human beings."1 Interspersed between Bowring's positive evaluation of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in 1830 and the two critical tributes in Blackwood's and the Quarterly in 1834, in 1832 Blackwood's prints another satire on Coleridge's poetic form in an essay that attacks Britishers in general and British poets specifically.. The tone of criticism in this essay differs from the earlier satirical parody in Blackwood's because the reviewer expresses indignation toward the satirist for spoofing Coleridge, although he prints the parody as well, whereas the earlier parody was printed without comment.2 The 1834 criticisms of Coleridge's major poem follow the pattern of John Wilson's essay of 1819 as they have an overall positive attitude toward the poem but with minor suggestions for improvement. H.N. Coleridge repeats his uncle's statement that the poem has too much moral and that a poem of pure imagination should not give reasons for What occurs or inculcate humanity in beasts, but H.N. Coleridge considers this a small fault. Other faults that H.N. Coleridge lists are that the ship sinks in the presence of the pilot and hermit, thereby bringing the preternatural too close to the framew0rk of the poem; and that the mariner is a decrepit old man instead of "a silent cloud-—the wandering Jew." lJohn Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge, Esq.," Westminster Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, p. 18. 2"Living Poets and Poetesses," Blackwood's, Volume 31, June, 1832, p. 957. In another of the Westmins‘ t supernatural frc about the nature diSparity in V1! carrying his bu‘ in the frivolit' One feels not mean natural w Spirit ca are not t his mood after re; from the The IEader, li] disbelief to a f511th rather t Praises the in accumulated be Filed up Batu] tale. In a s: of the Poem. lnh°spirab1e reviewer bel; the Charitie: 108. In another essay of 1834 a Blackwood's critic, like John Bowring of the Westminster Review in 1830, interprets this poem of the supernatural from the point of View of what the reader can understand about the natural world by reading it. This reviewer notes the disparity in viewpoints between the Ancient Mariner who has been carrying his burden for ages and the Wedding Guest who is engrossed in the frivolity of the moment. One feels that to him [the mariner] another world--we do not mean a supernatural——but a more exquisitely and deeply natural world——has been revealed-—and the repose of his spirit can only be in the contemplation of things that are not to pass away. The sad and solemn indifference of his mood is communicated to his hearer——and we feel, even after reading what he had heard, it were better "to turn from the bridegroom's door.” The reader, like the wedding guest, must exert a willing su5pension of disbelief to accept the crime and punishment in the poem with imaginative faith rather than according to contemporary judicial terms. The reviewer praises the imagery which other critics often considered too laboriously accumulated because he believes the imagery conveys a sense of having piled up naturally through the mariner's successive retellings of the tale. In a similar manner, the Blackwood's critic defends the mariner’s passive manner because he is powerless from a lack of will after committing his wicked act, and this contributes to the total meaning of the poem. The mariner is punished because he committed an inhospitable crime that stunned the spirit of the universe, and the reviewer believes the crew are also punished because they violated the charities of sentiment.2 But the critic declares that the l"Coleridge's Poetical Works," Blackwood's, Volume 36, October, 1834, p. 567. 2Ibid., p. 568. l l I mariner is doome consoling hope 1 or awaken manki' own cause then, tmtil his cause day of the last The criti increasing Syml as critics finc messages for r1 keynote is tha can form assoc be accepted or assoCialtionisi "Christabel" , re‘lllirement 4: for the reade truth to ma] the 909111 was Only ”Tummy mQOnsciOUS . The co critiCal att his lifetime 109. mariner is doomed in spite of his remorse and repentance with the consoling hope that his confession may soften the hardness of life or awaken mankind from the carelessness of cruelty. In helping his own cause then, the reviewer believes, the mariner also helps others until his cause is finally judged before the throne of justice on the day of the last judgment. The criticisms of ”The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" reflect increasing sympathy with Coleridge's poetic.style and subject matter as critics find ways to interpret poems of the supernatural as having messages for readers who have to improve in the natural world. The keynote is that such poems express emotional truth with which readers can form associations even though the subject matter of the poem must be accepted on faith. Critics were able to formulate this kind of associationist theory to make "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "Christabel” acceptable to the readership according to their critical requirement that a poem must present truth and a way to moral progress for the reader. However, critics could not see a pattern of emotional truth to reality expressed in "Kubla Khan," and they concluded that the poem was beautiful music without meaning. Therefore, critics only commented briefly on whether or not Coleridge's theory of unconscious poetic creation was actually feasible. The conclusion that must be reached about the development of the critical attitude toward Coleridge's poems of the supernatural during his lifetime is the same as that toward his shorter poems. Regardless of the politic.- poems tended t4 toward the end provided by th antagonistic j the field open journals tende did not begin But the two 13 011 Coleridge‘s they attempte in their revi m, @ Poetic Style We Poet in the s admittedly w: when the 0th( S.T. C W published it % 338a} 110. of the political affiliation of the journals, criticism of Coleridge's poems tended to turn from negative in the early years to:more positive toward the end of his lifetime. However, the negative comments were provided by the Whig Edinburgh Review before 1820 whereas this antagonistic journal ignored Coleridge's poetry after 1820 and left ' the field open to the more positive journals. The other four journals tended to favor Coleridge, although the Westminster Review did not begin publication until 1824 and the Athenaeum until 1828. But the two Tory journals were more negative in their specific comments on Coleridge's poems before 1820 than they were after 1820 although they attempted to maintain a positive tone toward Coleridge as a poet in their reviews. The parodies were another matter, however, and the Edinburgh, Quarterly, and Blackwood's printed parodies of Coleridge's poetic style before 1820. The maverick among the journals was Blackwood's because it parodied and then praised its fellow Tory poet in the same year, 1819, and then parodied his Work again in 1832, admittedly with a tone of righteous indignation against such parodies, when the other journals were more inclined to praise Coleridge's work. C. The Plays and Translations S.T. Coleridge's plays and translations were included in the Blackwood's and Quarterly Review essays on Coleridge's poetry published in 1819 and 1834 as well as in John Bowring's 1830 Westminster Review essay. Other than these, only Coleridge's drama Remorse received individual cri Coleridge's ne on the stage a Schiller's We}! m in 1821 own play 23% generally igm AlthOugi in these five translation 1 criticized la until after » BY then Cole: Lotkhart acc‘ England 'on t receptive p0 SneceSS,2 A "great Origj errors and I John Coleridge," 13 ZA‘L' l7~1825, 3J-G V01Ume 14, 111. individual critical recognition in a Quarterly Review essay written by Coleridge's nephew J.T. Coleridge in 1814 after the drama was produced on the stage and published, and S.T. Coleridge's translation of Schiller's Wallenstein was noticed by John Gibson Lockhart in Black— wood's in 1823 and then in the Quarterly Review in 1827. Coleridge's own play Zapolya and his translation of Schiller's Piccolomini were generally ignored by critics. Although Wallenstein was published in 1800, it was not mentioned in these five journals until John Wilson comments in 1819 that the translation is better than the original and will be more fully \ criticized later.l Coleridge's translation was not actually reviewed until after Walter Scott praised a new edition published in 1823. By then Coleridge was a contributor to Blackwood's, and John Gibson Lockhart accounts for the play's previous lack of recognition in England on the grounds that the translation originally met a non— receptive poetic climate although the German version had been a great success.2 Although Lockhart says Coleridge's translation disPlays "great original genius," he recommends that it be redone to remove errors and mistranslations and to take into account Schiller's changes.3 1John Wilson, "Essays on the Lake School of Poetry. No. III.—— Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 6, October, 1819, p. 12. 2A.L. Strout, A Bibliography 9f_Articles ig_B1ackwood's Magazine 1817—1825, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas, 1959, p. 113, attributes this to John Lockhart and P.P- Gilles. 3J.G. Lockhart, "Horae Germanicae. No. XVI," Blackwood's, Volume 14, October, 1823, p. 396. i Again in it was mention one by Scott. Wallenstein a: play is displ; translation. the cements repeats the c as calling or Of his sistei translated f~ many other e part beCause in the 18605 In am that S.T. C( the mEditat Coleridge g English pl, amplificatj SChiller We BesideS ex Coleridge lnHi p' 531. 112. Again in 1827 Walter Scott praised Coleridge's translation, and it was mentioned in a review of several historical romances, including one by Scott. This Quarterly Review essay considers Schiller's Wallenstein as an historical romance and only casually mentions that the play is diSplayed to advantage in English because of Coleridge's translation. Even so, the critic (probably John Lockhart again because the comments are much the same as those in his 1823 Blackwood's essay) repeats the charge that Coleridge made such low level translation errors as calling one of the characters Wallenstein's sister—in—law instead of his sister. Lockhart accounts for such errors because Coleridge translated from a theatrical manager's manusaript which also contained many other errors.1 This would appear to be speculation on the critic's part because when Coleridge's copies of Schiller's plays were discovered in the 18605, they proved to be copies certified by Schiller personally. In another Quarterly Bgyigw_essay in 1834 H.N. Coleridge indicates that S.T. Coleridge chose to translate Schiller's Walleggtgin because of the meditative and reflective habit of S.T. Coleridge's intellect. H.N. Coleridge gives his uncle credit for turning a German play into an English play in the manner of Shakespeare's work and for making original amplifications that Schiller later used to revise the play. Therefore, Schiller was thought to have profited by Coleridge's translation- Besides explaining why S.T. Coleridge translated Wallenstein, H.N. _ I Coleridge announces that his uncle dld not translate Goethe s Eggs; 1"Historical Romance,” Quarterly EEXEEE; Volume 35, March, 1827: p. 531. because he be artifically e: Coleridge def by contending saw Goethe's able instance minds."1 In the My Schiller‘s o- 60mpared wit‘ 0f compariso dramatic eva nephews, M is a COPY 01 judicious ii ”wing, a1 Shakespeare dramatic p0 Whom all 0t praiSES son . 1m %» V0 J~T Semi Edi 113. because he believed the idea of the play was insufficiently and artifically executed and because he objected to its basic theme. H.N. Coleridge defends his uncle against charges of plagiarism from Goethe by contending that S.T. Coleridge worked on a similar idea before he saw Goethe's play, and the similarity between the two plays is a remark— able instance "of unconscious coincidence between two great individual minds."l In the same articles where S.T. Coleridge's translation of Wallenstein was praised for the contributions with which he embellished Schiller's original, Coleridge's own drama Remorse was frequently compared with Shakespeare's plays. As Milton was often the ideal poet of comparison in other poetry, Shakespeare provided the touchstoneibr dramatic evaluation during Coleridge's lifetime. Both of Coleridge's nephews, J.T. and H.N. Coleridge, raise the question of whether Remorse is a copy or an imitation of Shakespeare. J.T. Coleridge sees a judicious imitation of Shakespeare in Coleridge's drama without servile copying, although the critic acknowledges that a comparison with Shakespeare cannot be favorable to S.T. Coleridge because the modern dramatic poet is regarded as inferior to the ideal dramatist against whom all others are measured.2 Nonetheless, J.T. Coleridge still praises some aspects of S.T. Coleridge's drama. 1H.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly REVieW, Volume 52, August, 1834, p. 21. 2J.T. Coleridge, "The Remorse. A Tragedy by S-T- Coleridge. Second Edition," Quarterly Review, April, 1814, P- 189- i 1 1 i First 01 it demonstrate to live up to perform inste. attributed to when the labo of future imp better read t character the reviewer pra; incidents am errors and i' but don‘t re of one act a natural.3 Again Coleridge's Bowing Con to Paint M l . W, Voi 2M. Setond Edit 3n 4" Br r. 402. 114. First of all, J.T. Coleridge declares Remorse a success.because it demonstrates the promise of Coleridge's dramatic capability. But to live up to this promise, the critic recommends that Coleridge must perform instead of procrastinate. S.T. Coleridge's inaction is attributed to nervous indolence wherein he plans to write but stops when the labor of execution begins.l As the play is primarily a promise of future improvement, J.T. Coleridge further suggests that Remorse is better read than performed because the poetry is of a lofty, imaginative character that is beyond the ready apprehension of common minds. The reviewer praises the charm of "a rich and glowing poetry" and the play's incidents and characters.2 Nonetheless, J.T. Coleridge notes radical errors and improbabilities such as characters who should be acquainted but don't recognize one another, awkwardness of plot between the closing of one act and the opening of the next, and too much action to appear natural.3 Again in 1820 a Qggrte£1y_article refers to Rgmgggg as proof of Coleridge's poetic talent but as an imperfect play.4 And in 1830 John Bowring concludes that although BEEREgé reflects Coleridge's ability to paint pictures with vivid images, his talent is not dramatic. lH.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," QEEEEEElZ Review, Volume 52, August, 1834, p. 21- 2J.T. Coleridge, "The Remorse. A Tragedy by S.T. Coleridgg. Second Edition," Quarterly Review, Volume 11, April, 1814, P- 18 - 3rbid., p. 188. 4"Brutus and Evadne," Quarterly Egyigfl, Volume 22’ January, 1820: p. 402. z ! He want: good re; those 01 They an Although H.N. the spirit of nephew also 3 production. is the conduc Coleridge bel Althoug the failure < of critical ( plot and cha: C01eridge's ‘ Characters a with his Ele basically ne '0' because Murals, Besids formd Varim CharaCtErs j 1 1John W 2m. Review) 01 115. He wants also the versatility which is essential to a good reading play. He does not throw his own mind into those of his characters, but absorbs theirs into his. They are, each and all, only Coleridge slightly modified.1 Although H.N. Coleridge concludes that S.T. Coleridge properly imitates the spirit of Shakespeare without resorting to servile imitation, this nephew also suggests that Remorse is more suitable for study than production. According to H.N. Coleridge, the chief defect of the play is the conduct of the plot. In spite of the energetic dialogue, H.N. Coleridge believes Remorse lacks dramatic movement.2 Although in 1834 H.N. Coleridge and a Blackwood's reviewer attribute the failure of Coleridge's play on the stage to poor acting, the concensus of critical opinion is that Remorse has major structural flaws of both plot and character. Nonetheless, critics were eager to defend Coleridge's poetry, metaphysics, and the motivations of his dramatic characters as suitable reading for refined Spirits who can identify with his elevated thoughts and emotion. This tone of approval over basically negative evaluations of the play can probably best be accounted for because the play was criticized only in politically sympathetic journals. Besides the attitude of remorse suggested by the title, critics found various major psychological motivations for the behavior of the characters in the play. J.T. Coleridge praises the varied and meta— . I! 1John Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. ColeridgE, ESQ-, Westminster Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, P- 26‘ 2H.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," QEEEEEEAX Review, Volume 52, August, 1834, P- 28' physical chart powers to dep‘ Alhadra descr husband.l La the emotion o reproach and characters. tragedy is a the vindicti‘ Coleridge cor is too stron a moral less Mixture of r the Critic ( PhYSical Ext PeCuliar f0. Remor. Lam-E was 1M. W 2J0hn estmlflstex 3n , Co. 1834) 1). 5e 116. physical characters of Ordonio and Alhadra because they show Coleridge's powers to depict the mind under feelings of acute agony such as when Alhadra describes her state of mind upon discovering the murder of her husband.1 Later critics more often stress Coleridge's effort to portray the emotion of remorse. John Bowring suggests an autobiographical self- reproach and a hint of Coleridge's unfulfilled poetic potential in the characters. Therefore, Bowring concludes that the true moral of the tragedy is a representation of the superiority of the benignant over the vindictive principle in their influences upon the guilty.2 H.N. Coleridge concludes that Alvar's effort to awaken remorse in Ordonio is too strongly put forward and looks too much like an effort to impress a moral lesson on the audience to be probable. The next month, a Blackwood's critic is excessively eulogistic in his praise of the mixture of music and melancholy, poetry and pathos in Remorse. But the critic concludes that the power of the play rests in the meta— physical exhibition of the passion of remorse in a character of very peculiar formation.3 Remorse received frequent criticism, but Coleridge's other drama Zapolya was mentioned only by two critics, John Bowring and H.N. lJ.T. Coleridge, "The Remorse. A Tragedy by S.T. Coleridge. Second Edition," Quarterly Review, Volume 11, April, 1814, p. 187. 2John Bowring, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge, Esq.,“ Westminster Review, Volume 12, January, 1830, p. 21. 3"Coleridge's Poetical Works," Blackwood's, Volume 36, October, 1834, p. 561. Coleridge. notes that tl although in Beaumont and some scenes Like m Coleridge nc dialogue, E coloring, H. rather than ShakESpeare Coler: Tory magazi: W toward Cole a dramatis quite negat were Writte after m even later Errors, am critiCs ag performed ‘ 117. Coleridge. The former dismisses this play as prose, but the latter notes that the play is an imitation of Shakespeare's A_Winter's 2312, although in spirit.it reminds Coleridge's nephew more of the best of Beaumont and Fletcher. H.N. Coleridge declares that the play contains some scenes of dramatic interest not inferior to the best in Remorse. Like Remorse Zapolya mixes the pastoral and the romantic, and H.N. Coleridge notes that it contains some surprising incidents and lively dialogue. Because of the play's elegance, softness, and delicate coloring, H.N. Coleridge is convinced that Zapolya also should be read rather than produced on the stage because parts of it, like parts of Shakespeare's plays, answer to the imagination alone. Coleridge's plays and translations were criticized only in the Tory magazines except for John Bowring's sympathetic essay in the Westminster Review in 1830. And the critics convey a tone of praise toward Coleridge as they praise his power as a translator and promise as a dramatist, but the specific evaluations of the plays are actually quite negative. First of all, although Coleridge's plays and translations were written before or around 1800, they were not noticed at all until after Remorse was produced in 1813. Coleridge's translation is praised even later, and critics agree that it has too many low level translation errors, and it should be redone. Although Coleridge‘s plays are praised, critics agree that they have major weaknesses and are better read than performed. And the antagonistic Edinburgh Review ignores the plays and translations. journals prai were forced 1 work. After usually igno caused criti when they su t0 the plays llren, in the critics to 6 play Was so for textual Altho the later y primeiples reViQWS thi William Haz Mai efforts. 1 coleridge ‘ 118. translations. The conclusion that must be drawn is that the Tory journals praised Coleridge's works as much as they could, but critics were forced to negative evaluations in the face of the quality of the work. After Coleridge's lifetime, the plays and translations were usually ignored. In the 18605 the di3covery of Schiller's manuscriptS‘ caused critics to revise their opinion of Coleridge as a translator when they substantiated that he actually made few original contributions to the plays and even more errors than earlier critics had realized. Then, in the 18905, the discovery of Coleridge's play Osorio prompted critics to defend Sheridan for not returning the manuscript because the play was so poorsalthough the discovery of this manuscript was useful for textual study of the development of Remorse from this play. Ell-”£912 Th3 Reception 9f_Coleridge's ngggfi ;§9g_gg_;§§g Although the most perceptive criticism of Coleridge's poetry in the later years of his life reflects an understanding of the critical principles Coleridge relates in the Biographia Literaria, the two reviews this book received in Blackwood's and the Edinburgh Review and William Hazlitt's single review of Th§_Statesman's Manual in the Edinburgh Review displayed marked antagonism toward Coleridge's prose efforts. Undoubtedly William Hazlitt's personal antagonism toward Coleridge was a factor in his critical attitude as well as the fact that the B_i9g journal. B_l_z resulted frm thmugh sens Coleridge th before. After the m utilitarian: declaration the W in 1830, 11. conversatio Taylor Cole Prose durir his autobi< Statements from Unfav COleridge1 1817 and t Alt} qualific a1 “0% WOI‘] 119. that the Biographia specifically attacks Hazlitt's reviews in Jeffrey's journal. Blackwood's negative review of the Biographia most likely nresulted from the monthly magazine editors' bid for wider circulation through.sensatinal criticism, in this case a more savage attack on Coleridge than the one made by its Edinburgh competitor the month before. After l8l7.reviewers ignored Coleridge's prose until 1830. Then the Athenaeum printed an essay attacking the Westminster Review's utilitarianism and defending Coleridge's prose against John Bowring's declaration that it could be disregarded in favor of the poetry. After the Athenaeum.noted the philosophical importance of Coleridge's prose in l830, H.N. Coleridge briefly mentioned his uncle‘s prose and conversational powers in the review of his 1834 edition of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poetry. The limited assessments of Coleridge's prose during his lifetime emphasize his disorganized prose style and his autobiographical statements with only limited evaluation of his statements on metaphysics and literary criticism. However, the trend from unfavorable condemnation to more sympathetic appreciation of Coleridge's prose was clearly indicated between the first reviews of 1817 and those of l830 and after. Although critics were concerned about Coleridge‘s moral qualifications for writing prose as well as poetry, evaluating the prose works themselves necessitated the formulation of critical standards di the associat the mind org poem, this d of Coleridge however, thj theory of 13‘ Prose assert Attempts to Other write: that Coleriw he was of 11 further con Three 33% .0 Criticism o by Hazlitt' repeatedly Nonethel‘aSs time- Hazj °' °rganiz. l Ste 1933, lett 2mm Volume 27 , 120. standards different from those used to examine the poetry. Whereas the association of ideas theory was transferred from a theory of how the mind organizes knowledge to a theory of how the poet organizes a poem, this device was not applied to the organization or interpretation of Coleridge's prose during his lifetime. After the poet's death, however, this theory was more widely used to explain Coleridge's organic theory of literary criticism. But the first reviews of Coleridge's prose asserted that Coleridge's prose style was without organization. Attempts to compare Coleridge's philosophical statements with those of other writers were very limited and generally resulted in the conclusion that Coleridge's statements were random and incomplete, and that since he was of insufficient philosophical stature they did not warrant further consideration. Three months after its slashing review of Christabel, Egblg 532%; and §§i§§_gf_§l§§p the Edinburgh Review published William Hazlitt's criticism of Th3 Statesman's Manual. Coleridge was enormously disturbed by Hazlitt's remarks and wrote to Reverend Wrangham that Hazlitt "has repeatedly boasted, that he wrote the very contrary of all he believed."1 Nonetheless, many of Hazlitt's criticisms have been repeated since that time. Hazlitt concludes that Thg Statesman's Manual is without purpose or organization, and the conclusions always precede the premises.2 1Stephen Potter, ed., Coleridge Select Poetry ggd_g£9§g, London, 1933, letter of June 5, 1811 to Reverend F. Wrangham, p. 670. 2William Hazlitt, "The Statesman's Manual," Edinburgh Review, Volume 27, December, 1816, p. 445. Instead of p: into metaphy: no harm or g issue is int is unable to It is opinic pursui Coler] lies . Althox that he lac] another. (3 another Wit believes Co face of Opp to each new least SUPP‘ aSSassinat; taking a C, In t religious to limit t Way Colem- 1m: 27‘ DECEm} 121. Instead of presenting facts, Hazlitt contends that Coleridge retreats into metaphysics, and.he stays between theory and practice, thus doing no harm or good. Coleridge's tendency to examine various sides of an issue is interpreted by Hazlitt as weak vascillation because Coleridge is unable to.make up his mind. It is in this sort of waking dream, this giddy maze of opinions, started, and left, and resumed-—this momentary pursuit of truths, as if they were butterflies——that Mr. Coleridge's pleasure, and, we believe, his chief faculty lies. Although Coleridge sees many sides of a subject, Hazlitt suggests that he lacks the ability to see the relationships of things to one another. Consequently, Coleridge's fancy leads him from one thought to another without developing balance or coming to truth. Thus, Hazlitt believes Coleridge loses the will to adhere to what is right in the face of opposition; and this makes him listless and indifferent, subject to each new impulse. Hazlitt contends that in Thg_§£iggd Coleridge at least supported some contemporary if forlorn hopes such as for the assassination of Buonaparte, but in Thg_§£g§§§m§gi§_fl§§g§l he avoids taking a consistent stand on any Subject.2 In the matter of religion Hazlitt first compares Coleridge's religious views with those of the Catholics and accuses him of attempting to limit the Protestant inclination toward free inquiry because 0f the way Coleridge advocates that the Bible be read.3 As Coleridge's religious lWilliam Hazlitt, ”The Statesman's Manual," Edinbur h Egyigw, Volume 27, December, 1816, p. 446. 2 . Ibid., p. 447. 3Ibid., p. 449. views would subject to ( Becaus and absurdii uses diffen with any se‘ according t he hates mo intuitively Hazlitt con means of wc foolish."" While Enemy HaZl: the Tory Q the nature Sew." In h HaZlitt ch own_ In E lWi] Volume 27 ‘ 122- views would restrict inquiry, Hazlitt also suggests that they are subject to challenge by higher church authority;l Because his primary purpose is to point out the inconsistencies and absurdities in Coleridge's book, Hazlitt concludes that Coleridge uses different methods to examine all questions and tries not to agree with any set of men or opinions.2 One example of Coleridge's inconsistency, according to Hazlitt, is that Coleridge can on the one hand declare that he hates mobs and on the other hand say that people are capable of intuitively perceiving the "cabalistic visions" of German metaphysics.3 Hazlitt concludes the essay with Hobbes' observation that "it is by means of words only that a man becometh excellently wise or excellently foolish."4 While the Whig Edinburgh Review devotes fifteen pages by Coleridge's enemy Hazlitt to this unfavorable evaluation of EEE.§E§£E§E§EL§.H§EE§£: the Tory Quarterly Review only briefly notes that Coleridge describes the nature of Socinianism "with consummate ability in his §g£ggd_ggy Sermon." In his review of the giggggphig_gigg£§£ig a few months later, Hazlitt charges that Coleridge's literary views are really Hazlitt's OWn. In Hazlitt's opinion Coleridge's book is not so much an account lWilliam Hazlitt, "The StateSman's Manual," EQEEDEEBE.E§X$EE, Volume 27, December, 1816, p. 452. 2;p;g,, p. 453. 3;p;g., p. 455. 4Ibid., p. 459. of his life attacks Cole and opinions influence, E of Bowles, h criticisms c With inconsi the opinion the first pj the Public against den leave his w toms from Style and t a new SChoc Hazlj beginnings (118ch C0 the BEBE eXteusivE the M33 123. of his life and opinions as an apology for them.1 Therefore, Hazlitt: attacks Coleridge's.statements concerning various aSpects of his life and opinions. After noting Coleridge's regard for Bowles' early poetic influence, Hazlitt expresses a preference for Warton's poetry over that of Bowles, Wordsworth, or any sonnets in the language. Besides such criticisms of Coleridge's literary views, Hazlitt charges Coleridge With inconsistencies in his defense of Robert Southey, beginning with- the Opinion that such a defense is unnecessary to the Biographia in the first place. Hazlitt accuses Coleridge of defending Southey against the public charge of writing democratic nonsense in youth and then against democracy in maturity by using the fact that Southey did not leave his wife and children, a private matter, as a defense.2 Hazlitt turns from his criticism of Coleridge to comment on Southey's prose Style and then to accuse Wordsworth of pretensions to having founded a new school of poetry. Hazlitt is more interested in Coleridge's account of the beginnings 0f EEE.E§£EEEEE than in his metaphysics. He elects not to discuss Coleridge's distinction between fancy and imagination because the Biographia Literaria was supposed to be only the prelude to a more extensive philosophical discussion. After Chapter Four Hazlitt views the Biographia as a metaphysical march intended to prove Wordsworth's lWilliam Hazlitt, "Biographia Literaria; or Biographical SketChes of My Literary Life and Opinions,'l EQ}E§E£BQ.§EX§§K’ Volume 28’ August, 1817, p. 488. 21bid., p. 493. claim to orj Coleridge 211 as Imreadabi than Hobbes association attack on C the usual a Mr. C every a dea his i sense consi a bat Like Plato the Practh ideal W0rl< article Fr. mEt WOrdsw The WEE Mam geflerally Coletidge' 1Wi] 1817) p_ E ZFI‘; 124. claim to originality as a poet.. The section of the book in which Coleridge attempts to explain his metaphysical theories is described as unreadable. Hazlitt disagrees with Coleridge that Descartes rather than Hobbes should be considered original in promulgating the law of association and its consequences. Hazlitt again deviates from his attack on Coleridge for an evaluation of Kant before concluding with‘ the usual assessment of Coleridge as a poet who wasted his powers. Mr. C., with great talents, has, by an ambition to be everything, become nothing. His metaphysics have been a dead weight on the wings of his imagination——whi1e his imagination has run away with his reason and common sense. He might, we seriously think, have been a very considerable poet-—instead of which he has chosen to be a bad philosopher and a worse politician. Like Plato Hazlitt recommends that poets such as Coleridge be kept from the practical administration of world affairs because they live in an ideal world of their own. In an extended footnote appended to this article Francis Jeffrey describes his visit to Keswick in 1810 when he . . . 2 met Wordsworth and Coleridge and denies hav1ng rev1ewed "Christabel." The newly revamped Blagkwggdlg Edinbur h Mggggigg followed the Edinbur h figyigw the next month with an even more savage review of the Biographia Literaria than the one by William Hazlitt. In spite of his generally unsympathetic attitude, however, John Wilson does praise Coleridge's criticism of Wordsworth and his comments on poetry and 1William Hazlitt, ”Biographia Literaria; or Biographical Sketches Of My Literary Life and Opinions," Edinburgh Review, Volume 28, August, 1817, p. 514. 2Francis Jeffrey, Ibid., p. 510. meter.1 Wi Coleridge's reviewed la sections of could or sh positive as Therefore, the 50111, 1 Such self—e because it But i that autob; morals who is neither in his pol iIlteI‘prete Wilson als illdividua] izations, 1A.] BlackaO d OliPhant ; ang rllle: 2 . Jo 0f SoT. C P~ 3. 125. meter.1 Wilson also acknowledges that he does not understand Coleridge's.metaphysics and promises to have this part of the book reviewed later. Therefore, Wilson concentrates on the autobiographical sections of the Biographia. He first speculates on whether or not one could or should try to recall his own past. Both the.negative and the positive aspects of the past prompt a reshaping by the memory.2 Therefore, Wilson believes attempts to remember, to probe the wounds of the soul, produce "callousness or irritability” in the individual.3 Such self—examination is appropriate in religion, according to Wilson, because it is right to kneel before God, but not before the public. But Wilson's primary objection to the Biographia Literaria is that autobiographies should be written only by people with very high morals who have made a first rank contribution to society, and Coleridge is neither well-known nor of such high moral character. The changes in his political and religious views recorded in the Biographia are interpreted by Wilson as a sign of weakness in Coleridge's character. Wilson also suggests that a valuable biography Would not record the individual qualities of a particular mind but would convey the general— izations, observations, and experiences that are applicable to the lA.L. Strout attributes this review to John Wilson because Blackwood sent Wilson the book to review in August. See p. 29. Mrs. Oliphant also comments on this. See Vol. 1, p. 262-264. Andrew Lang rules out John Gibson Lockhart as the author in his Life Efii Letters of John Gibson Lockhart, I, £8, note. 2John Wilson, "Some Observations on the 'Biographia Literaria' of S.T. Coleridge, Esq.-—l8l7," Blackwood's, Volume 2, October, 1817, P. 3. 31bid., p. 8. miversal n seeing rea] Coleridge i great man \ writing bi: according 0f poetry. self-impoz autobiogr; Afte individua; enlist gu' mingled w Society_2 reVie—Wing poet and eXCesSiv‘ lw his abil thesis 6, deep in; 1 0f S.T" P- 8. 126. 1 universal mind of man. In Wilson's Opinion Coleridge is incapable of seeing reality without an imaginative Coating. Furthermore, because Coleridge had made no major contribution to society to mark him as a great man whose life might profitably be studied, Wilson believes writing his life story only shows Coleridge's egotism. Arrogance, according to Wilson, is a feature shared by members of the Lake School of poetry. Whereas the truly great man's work outshines his individual self-importance, Wilson finally forces himself to the conclusion that autobiographical statement is improper even for great men. After attacking autobiographies in general and Coleridge's individual motives for writing, Wilson declares that the tour to enlist subscriptions for The Watchman degraded Coleridge because he mingled with common people and showed a lack of reSpect for rank in society.2 Wilson also derides Coleridge's criticism of contemporary reviewing practices and concludes that Coleridge has some value as a poet and literary critic, but this is over-ridden by Coleridge's excessive egotism. Two months later, a letter to the reviewer defends Coleridge for his ability to see and admit his earlier mistakes. An account of these errors, this correspondent contends, is more likely to make a deep impression on the reader's mind than the contemplation of a 1John Wilson, "Some Observations on the 'Biographia Literaria' of S.T. Coleridge, Esq.—-l8l7," Blackwood's, Volume 2, October, 1817, p. 8. 2Ibid., p. 12. character w feelings; " awed by the agree that personal p1 reviewer wt that he ha Quite poss criticism Lockhart a ‘ Blackwood‘ i Written by PIOducedl SuCh a le Outside t While 012 In briefly and EEta (my C01 ideas in 1; Blackwo( 1817’ p 2 3 rathe r 127- character which had been uniformly equal in his habits, conduct, and feelings; "...many will slight the warnings of the good and yet be 1 awed by the conversion of the frail." But Wilson and his respondent agree that such changes in opinion represent moral weakness rather than personal progress toward perfection. The correspondent charges the reviewer with personal motives for downgrading Coleridge and announces that he has no personal or ulterior motives for praising Coleridge.2 Quite possibly this actually was the case. However, the Blackwood's criticism of this era was so excessively vitriolic, especially that of Lockhart and Wilson, that many lawsuits were instituted against William Blackwood's firm. Therefore, occasionally such letters of rebuttal were written by the critics themselves to erase some of the antagonism produced by the reviews in attEmptS‘tO ward off lawsuits. Therefore, such a letter in support of Coleridge might have come either from outside the journal or, more likely, from within the firm to soothe public opinion. In September, 1818, an article signed Oriel College, Oxford, briefly fulfills JOhn Wilson's earlier pledge to treat the philosophy and metaphysics of the Biographia.3 This four page discussion considers only Coleridge's attack on David Hartley's theories of associations of ideas insofar as they deviated from Aristotle's. The reviewer is lJ.S., "To the Reviewar of Coleridge's Biographia Literaria, in Blackwood's Magazine for October," Blackwood's, Volume 2, December, 1817, p. 287. 2Ibid., p. 288. 3A.L. Strout attributes this to Wilson as well, but this seems rather unlikely. See p. 45 of A.L. Strout's Bibliography. 4T: particularly thoughts are girl who spr that she mu employer wa reviewer co knowledge i reviewer 51 acquired. Besi« imperishab “light couf Aquinas an 0f misleac Philosophe plagiarizr The it Was th 1830, In Aids t \33 10. Plagiari: 1818, p. 128. particularly vehement in his.attack on Coleridge's theory that all thoughts.are imperishable. He repeats.Coleridge's.story of the servant girl who spoke Hebrew in a delirium; but whereas Coleridge concluded that she must have unconsciously retained the language which her employer was reading when she passed the door of his study, the reviewer concludes that this story shows that the girl possessed a knowledge in her delirium that she had previously lacked.l But the reviewer supplies no theory to account for how this knowledge was acquired. Besides disagreeing with Coleridge's view that thoughts are imperishable, the reviewer expresses the wish that Sir James Macintosh might confirm or deny Coleridge's comments on David Hume. Thomas Aquinas and David Hume are compared briefly, and Coleridge is accused of misleading his readers concerning the relationship between these philosophers. The critic says Coleridge falsely charged that Hume plagiarized from Aquinas. The Quarterly Review did nt notice the Biographia.at all, but it was the only one of the journals to mention Aids £9 Reflection before 1830. In a review of Hurwitz's Hebrew Ialgs the critic briefly praises Agg§_gg Reflection as "a book full of passages of the most powerful lOriel College, Oxford, "David Hume Charged by Mr. Coleridge with Plagiarism from St. Thomas Aquinas," Blackwood's, Volume 3, September, 1818, p. 655. eloquence. . . prose again: favor of th: magazines w. Athenaeum r mentions se require stu Athenaeum < prose are 1 M e the Englis? also refle prose of t “10“ profc And and com Coleridge Works we: Were mOre PIOSe am intellect 1"} Volume 3 2" Number 1 31 A} 1%, 129. eloquence..."l And the politically.neutra1 Athenaeum defended Coleridge's prose against John Bowring's contention that it should.be ignored in favor of the poetry.2 Reviewing the reviews of books published in.other magazines was a common practice during this period. Much of the Athenaeum review is an attack on.utilitarianism, but the Athenaeum critic mentions several of Coleridge's prose works and declares that they require study by a subtle and reflecting mind. Nonetheless, the Athenaeum contends that the underlying philosophy of the poetry and prose are related. The Athenaeum reviewer praises the Biographia Literaria as the most elaborate and satisfactory analysis of poetry in the English language, and he believes Th; Friend and éi§§_gg Reflection also reflect intense and comprehensive thought. This critic.regards the prose of these volumes as "the purest style, and with a tone of the most profound earnestness."3 And H.N. Coleridge also briefly notices S.T. Coleridge's prose and conversational powers in his review of the 1834 edition of S.T. Coleridge's poetry. H.N. Coleridge asserts that his uncle's prose works were inadequately evaluated during his lifetime because critics were more engrossed in the character of the author. In addition to the Prose and poetry, H.N. Coleridge believes much of S.T. Coleridge's intellectual life and his opinions hinged on his oral communication.4 l"Hurwitz's Hebrew Tales," Quarterly Review, January, 1827, Volume 35, p. 114. 2"The Westminster Review.—-Writings of Coleridge,” Athenaeum, Number 116, January 16, 1830, p. 17. 31bid., p. 18. 4H.N. Coleridge, "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 52, August, 1834, P- 4- In a compari old enemy S: Coleridge's that made t James Macin 1837 when h as a basis having the the three. Alth uncle‘s p0 Celeridge' Whereas 0t better or: ViewS in 1 to aPPrEC PSYcholog the Prose pOEtrY, a PYOSe. imaginat: Views ex declared beeause 130. In a comparison between the conversations of S.T. Coleridge and his old enemy Sir James Macintosh, H.N. Coleridge contends that S.T. Coleridge's conversations had an unexpectedness of thought and image that made them superior to the dry and arranged conversation of Sir James Macintosh. This argument is reversed by Francis.Jeffrey in 1837 when.he uses a review of the table talk of Sir James Macintosh as a basis to attack Coleridge and praise Coleridge's enemy, besides having the last word in the controversy because he was the survivor of the three. Although H.N. Coleridge's review is primarily concerned with his uncle's poetry, he also assesses the relationship.between S.T. Coleridge's poetry and prose and evaluates his conversational powers. Whereas other critics of this era concluded that the poet expressed better organized and more perceptive philosophical and psychological views in his poetry than in his prose, the nephew is the first critic to appreciate the importance of Coleridge's prose comments on psychology, morality, and philosophy. Hartley Nelson Coleridge believes the prose contains more significant statements on these topics than the poetry, and he also notes that metaphysics prevails over religion in the Prose. Thus, while H.N. Coleridge rates the poetry as of first imaginative importance and beauty, he asserts the value of the intellectual views expressed in the prose. And S.T. Coleridge's conversations are declared superior to the prose accounts of these intellectual ideas because he ranged more freely in the conversations than the confines of print would with being ( prose and c« was prepari‘ Coleridge, statements for this bc The 1 to turn in and 1817 W were u5ual Tory and W P6rsonalit later revi Coleridge‘ PositiVe ‘ denied it major fac 131. print would allow. Hartley Nelson Coleridge must, therefore, be credited with being one of the first critics to recognize the value of Coleridge's prose and conversations. Since.at the time of this review the nephew Coleridge, the praise of his uncle's conversational powers and perceptive statements on various intellectual issues serves also as advance advertising for this book. The reviews of Coleridge's prose, like those of his poetry, tend to turn from negative to positive although the negative reviews of 1816 and 1817 were extensive whereas the positive comments on the prose later were usually brief and related to some other subject.' Although both' Tory and Whig critics attacked Coleridge's prose in the earlier period, personalities and editorial policies influenced the issue more than in ' later reviews. And while John Bowring was a positive Spokesman for Coleridge's poetry in the Westminster Review, he also motivated a positive evaluation of Coleridge's prose in the Athenaeum because he denied its value. But certainly politics and personalities were the major factors in the reception of Coleridge's prose during his lifetime. Betwe the reviews various cha biography (. 0n t] as a poet had alread “'3on cont ation of 1 critics h: the disgo. COleridge Col Ta, rep WhEreas t continua during t] 'he c011. Litera \I‘Y Chapter III Introduction Between 1835 and 1870 Coleridge's poetry was little noticed by the reviewers whereas the critical reception of his prose underwent various changes in emphasis, and critical reactions to accounts of his biography altered significantly. 0n the subject of poetry, critics extended Coleridge recognition as a poet but with the assumption that his ability in this category had already been assessed. Except for a few general comments, the only major contribution to Colerflge's reputation as a poet was the re—evalu— ation of the poetry in his translations of Schiller's plays. Whereas critics had previously praised Coleridge for original poetic additions, the discovery of Schiller's manuscripts forced them to re-assess Coleridge's poetic ability in relation to his role as a translator. Coleridge's prose, beginning with the Subject matter of ggplg Talk, replaced the poetry as the primary Subject of critical attention. Whereas the poetry was slightly and objectively treated, the prose continued to be criticized on the basis of political and personal biases during the first ten years after Coleridge's death. Besides reviewing the collection of prose fragments that H.N. Coleridge published as Literary Remains, before 1845 critics compared their personal recollecti m Till Coleridge. Coleridge‘ distincti‘ Later cri conversat In My writer, a Policy of more ofte biographj Poetic a1 Politica three ma Prose an jOUrnal‘ new pub: Own. A recepti recolle 133. recollections of Coleridge's conversations with the prose record in Igblg Talk, the account of these conversations published by H.N. Coleridge. The subjective comparison between the memory of S.T. Coleridge's actual Speech and the prose account of what he said is a distinctive aspect of Coleridge's prose reception in this period. Later critics based their more objective evaluations of Coleridge's conversational powers on these firsthand accounts. In their political attitudes toward Coleridge's writing, the Quarterly Review continued to be generally favorable t0‘a fellow Tory writer, although the Tory Blackwood's continued its contradictory policy of sometimes praising and, in the early part of this period, more often condemning various aspects of Coleridge's writing and biography. The Whig Edinburgh Review finally noted Coleridge's poetic ability briefly although his prose and particularly his political views were attacked. And the Westminster Review published three major essays before 1870 that attempt to assess Coleridge's prose and his contribution to society from the perspective of that journal's radical reform political standpoint. The Athenaeum noticed new publications by or about Coleridge without a political bias of its own. Another distinctive aspect of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's critical reception during this period was the publication of personal recollections by various close associates. Reviewers attempted to l 1 l i evaluate t1 drug addic biographic they often to collect In t biases wer prose and the criti( accounts, letters,1 Coleridge Scattered 1834 edi Iélk beg coleridg refereflc 1840 Unt 134. evaluate the effect of revelations about Coleridge's private life and drug addiction on his reputation and on his surviving family. These biographical recollections and the letters by or about Coleridge that they often contained heralded the more objective biographies and efforts to collect his letters in the period after 1870. In the period between 1834 and 1845, then, personal and political biases were still reflected in the reviewers' evaluations of Coleridge's prose and accounts of his biography. However, between 1845 and 1870 the critical trend was increasingly toward more objective biographical accounts, the collection and evaluation of Coleridge's prose, including letters, marginalia, and other fragments, and closer textual study of Coleridge's translations, although the other poetry received only scattered, peripheral notice. Part One The Critical Reception 9f_S.T. Coleridge's Poetgy and Translations between 1835 and 1870 Following the Blackwood's and Quarterly reviews of Coleridge's 1834 edition of poems, in 1835 the Edinburgh Review critique of Egblg 22;k_begins with an assessment of Coleridge's poetry. After that, Coleridge's poetry was ignored in these journals except for a brief reference at the beginning of J.S. Mill's article on philosophy in 1840 until Sara and Derwent Coleridge published a new edition of S.T. Coleridge's poems in 1852. Even then, only occasional brief references to Coleri describes and on th in a rela year a 9; science a the char; With Colr describe: was rece Th poetry d Schiller relate t Berlin a colerid, critics aecurat of this I journal 135. to Coleridge's poetry follow in these journals until Walter Pater describes it briefly in connection with Coleridge's literary criticism and on the basis of his theory of Coleridge's search for absolutes in a relative world in a Westminster Review essay of 1866. The next year a Quarterly Review critic redefines the concepts of relatives in science and absolutes in art as he attempts to defend Coleridge against the charge of artistic indolence at the same time that he disagrees with Coleridge's theory of poetic creativity. Section A of this Part describes the reception of Coleridge's poetry during this period as it was received in general criticisms. The major alteration in critical attitudes toward Coleridge‘s poetry during this period was toward Coleridge's translations of Schiller's plays. In the 18603 a series of letters in the Athenaeum relate the discovery of manuscript versions of Schiller's plays in Berlin and inspire critical inquiry about the versions from which Coleridge translated. Recovery of these manuscripts in England enabled critics to compare Schiller's and Coleridge's versions and more accurately assess Coleridge's abilities as a translator. Section B of this Part considers critical commentaries on the translations. A. The Reception of S.T. Coleridge's Poetry During Coleridge's lifetime sympathetic reviewers in all of the journals except the Edinburgh Review increasingly criticized Coleridge's poetry on objectives this criti poems rece such as t1 Instead, ‘ whether 0 from Goet Coleridge tried to The Coleridge William } in that . describe to eValu The allth in COler Supemar beheral: originai l “111% 136. poetry on the basis of the statement of his and Wordsworth's poetic objectives in the Biographia Literaria. Following the culmination of this criticism of Coleridge's poetry in 1834, however, Coleridge's poems receive little Specific evaluation; and no major critical theory such as the association of ideas is prevalent between 1835 and 1870. Instead, Coleridge's poetic power is praised, and critics debate' whether or not Coleridge was a metrical innovator and if he plagiarized from Goethe. Only Walter Pater develops a distinctive theory of Coleridge's poetic creativity on the basis of his theory that Coleridge tried to find absolute standards in a world of.relative values. The Edinburgh Review ignored all three major editions of Coleridge's poems printed at the end of his lifetime. Consequently, William Hazlitt's essay in 1816 was the only evaluation of Coleridge in that journal until 1835 when the Edinburgh review of I§hl§.2§lk describes Coleridge's conversation as the work of a poet and proceeds to evaluate Coleridge's poetry before considering his conversation. The author of this review is most unusual in that he praises the verse in Coleridge's drama more than the lyrical verse and poems of the supernatural although the reviewer does note that Remorse was not generally well received, and "Christabel" is an example of Coleridge's original genius.l 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 146. Alt] originali of Coleri claim him which was "Christah uncle det vein, thj and plag: Luther i] curious each bee metre no sYllable Similar first, I Whereas Very 0L 137. Although the Edinbgggh_reviewer acknowledges Coleridge's claim to originality as a poet of the supernatural, he questions the originality of Coleridge's verse form. For this critic, the validity of Coleridge's claim hinges on whether or not he was familiar with Goethe's Eggggg which was published in 1790, seven years before the first part of "Christabel" was written. Whereas H.N. Coleridge contends that his uncle developed his theories independently of Goethe but in a similar vein, this critic believes that Coleridge borrowed ideas from Goethe and plagiarized the scene in Egg§§_that describes the temptations of Luther in his cell.at Wartburg. The critic concludes that it is a curious coincidence if not plagiarism that the two writers Should have each been first in their reSpective countries to produce "that singular metre now so fashionable, in which the verse is measured, not by syllables, but by cadences; and that both should have dedicated it to similar subjects of wild, unearthly interest."l Whichever critic was first, the critic believes this was an original way to write poetry whereas many critics concluded that Coleridge's method was actually very old. After 1835 Coleridge received only limited recognition as a poet until 1866. John Stuart Mill pays tribute to Coleridge as a poet before turning to Coleridge's philosophy in his 1840 Westminster Review essay. Like Bowring in 1830, Mill contends that instead of 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 147. charging Cc evaluated 1 Athefll poetry edi1 daughter. are includ‘ little att translatio that no fc Pathos of notes One Mariner," Wildness ' Volume an News the 01d a The revie attempt 1 coleridg. 1840 lJ 5 p. 2n AUguSt 7 3" P- 574. 4. 29. rsse 138. charging Coleridge with not finishing anything, Coleridge should be evaluated for the poetic power he diSplays.1 Then, in 1852 the Athenaeum briefly nets the publication of a new edition of Coleridge's poetry edited by Derwent and Sara Coleridge, S.T. Coleridge's son and daughter. Except for noting that some newly or rarely published poems are included, the critic pays tribute to Coleridge's daughter and pays little attention to the edition of Coleridge's poetry.2 In 1854 a Blackwood's essay on Latin versification briefly mentions a Latin translation of "Pains of Sleep" by W.B. Jones. The reviewer comments that no foreign version can adequately express the deep melancholy pathos of the original poetic passage.3 And in 1856 the Athenaeum notes one of the many illustrated editions of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." The poem is described as an Opium dream of grandeur and wildness before the critic more extensively comments on the elegant volume and the illustrations accompanying the poem.4 An 1855 Edinburgh Review article on Tennyson's Mggd_§gd_9§hgg_§g§m§ picks up the old argument over whether or not Coleridge was a poetic innovator. The reviewer declares that in ”Christabel" Coleridge makes a systematic attempt to regulate his verse by equi—distant accents. Although Coleridge's preface indicates that he regarded this idea as a discovery lJ.S. Mill, "Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 33, January, 1840, p. 260. 2"The Poems of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 1293, August 7, 1852, p. 841. 3"Latin Versification," Blackwood's, Volume 76, November, 1854, p. 574. 4"The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," Athenaeum, No. 1518, November 29, 1856, p. 1462. or his owr principle \ Quarterly ‘ this crit 2 did not k 1 of metre The contempor establish evaluatir t°Provi( 1866 Wher and lite the Work As Walter F betrayed beCause Perfect: ”Wit the: remembe l 1855, p 139. or his own, this critic contends that it 18 a return to the original principle of English verse. Like H.N. Coleridge's comment in the Quarterly Review and in opposition to the 1835 Edinburgh Review essayist, this critic says that Coleridge was the exceptional poet of his time who did not knowingly and purposely despise and neglect the consideration of metre as art. These brief acknowledgements of Coleridge in comparison with contemporary poets who are being reviewed indicate both Coleridge's established position as a poet and the reviewers' greater interest in evaluating more contemporary writing. Coleridge's poetry continues to provide a comparison for the evaluation of other poets' work until 1866 when Walter Pater makes a significant examination of his poetry and literary criticism in their own right rather than in relation to the work of others. As in his consideration of Coleridge's theology and philosophy, Walter Pater contends that Coleridge's quest for absolutes in art betrayed him into a path that denied the highest intellectual Success because this direction did not provide the right conditions for the perfection of Coleridge's artistic talent. But Pater says so much "witchery" exists in Coleridge's poems that he will most probably be remembered permanently as a poet. Pater's primary question is how l"Tennyson's 'Maud,'" Edinburgh Review, Volume 102, October, 1855, p. 515. Coleridge his poeti For expressi< stances : joyous pt the exis mind whi heavenly unbroken Pater th of them. convicti wofdswm by the 1 contend, an inte. of the Philoso the rel on inte l 85, Jar 2 140. Coleridge's determination to affirm the absolute weakened or modified his poetical gift.l For Walter Pater, the best poetry represents an instinctive expression of joy. He compares Wordsworth's and Coleridge's poetic stances in the 1798 Lyrical Ballads and concludes that Wordsworth is a joyous poet who, both in instinct and sentiment, held a conviction of the existence of certain latent affinities between nature and the human mind which reciprocally "gild the mind and nature with a kind of heavenly alchemy."2 In Wordsworth this attitude took the form of an unbroken dreaming over the aspects and transitions of nature; for Pater this includes a reflective, but altogether unformulated, analysis of them. Pater suggests that Coleridge's poetry also expresses this conviction, but Coleridge could not abandon himself to the dream as Wordsworth did.3 Although Coleridge's sentiments were less dominated by the theory of the relationship between mind and nature, Pater contends that it possessed him as a philosophical idea that requires an intellectual assent. Pater feels that a better or worse expression of the facts occurs depending on how the understanding weighs the philosophical idea in a logical balance. Thus, Pater indicates that the relationship between mind and nature is less reliable when based on intellect than when based on instinct. Because Wordsworth's lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 49. 21bid., p. 49. 3Ibid., p. 50. sentimen1 possessec l 1 Coleridg his tale of Sided k1 ‘ | [ Pater to l l u Pater, j to Stere Ir relativé t0 refu I Powers. had tri also ha contamp nothing I “Omplet him to to Writ 85) Jan 141. sentiment enveloped him, he lacked the self—knowledge that Coleridge possessed. On the other hand, Pater suggests that the essence of Coleridge's talent was the intuition of an idea, and Coleridge commanded his talent better than Wordsworth. He not only feels with Wordsworth the expression of mind in nature, but he can project that feeling outside him, reduce it to a psychological law, define its relation to other elements of culture, place it in a complete view of life. Pater concludes that Coleridge is most successful in a dramatic many- Sided kind of poetry. To succeed in writing this poetry, according to Pater, ideas are best held loosely in the relative Spirit without seeking to stereotype any one of the many modes of life. In the following year a Quarterly Revigy critic also distinguishes relative from absolute in relation to Coleridge's art. The critic wants to refute the contention that Coleridge was indolent and wasted his powers. He believes that Coleridge would have wasted his powers if he had tried to realize the vision of "Kubla Khan" or "Christabel" would also have been a tragedy if he had attempted to finish it in the contemporary style. And this critic voices the unusual opinion that nothing was lost because many of Coleridge's proposed studies were not completed for the reason that Coleridge's artistic sensitivity directed him to do what he could do. The critic says Coleridge's genius led him to write poetry in response to his creative instinct rather than the 1Walter Pater, ”Coleridge's Writings,” nggmig§E§£_§gyigw, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 50. less reli issue wit ten year: be waster whereasi able. W critic d absolute poetry 1 epic poe his gen: T l? 1 T of C01e made g5 Practii framew tended attent COleri Volume 142. less reliable intellectual declaration of intent.: He particularly takes issue with Coleridge's contention that he would study the sciences for ten years to write an epic. The reviewer argues that this time would be wasted because science is progressive and alters from year to year whereas poetry is an art that deals with the unalterable and imperish— able. Whereas Pater contends that all knowledge is relative, this critic distinguishes between the relative knowledge of science and the absolutes of art. Whereas science requires a knowledge of things, Coleridge is not an poetry requires a knowledge of the human heart.1 epic poet, the critic declares, not because of indolence but because his genius is not of the epic variety. That which he lacks is not light, but fire. He has no prolonged sustainment of passion; he can delight the imagination, he cannot enthral the heart. The conclusion can be drawn from this survey of critical opinions of Coleridge's poetry between 1835 and 1870 that critics most often made general assessments of Coleridge's poetry without arriving at any practical evaluations of the poems and without the association of ideas framework that was prevalent during Coleridge's lifetime. Reviewers tended to assume Coleridge's authority as a poet and turned their attention to his prose except for a brief critical surge of interest in Coleridge's translations of Schiller's plays. l"Charles Lamb and Some of His Companions," Quarterly Review, Volume 122, January, 1867, p. 14. 2Ibid., p. 15. The poetry cl 1835 and was firm because ‘ lated so translat addition Coleridg H-N. Co] lations PUblish % in comp t0 chal the 50] to all litera, think ‘ famili 143. B. Criticisms of Coleridge's Translations The limited and subordinate collection of comments on Coleridge's poetry clearly indicates that it was of less interest to critics between 1835 and 1870 than his prose, although Coleridge's reputation as a poet was firmly established. And his translations concerned critics chiefly because of the discovery of the manuscripts from which Coleridge trans— lated some of Schiller's plays. During his lifetime Coleridge's translations of Schiller and what were considered Coleridge's own poetic additions to these plays were much examined, and they contributed t0' Coleridge's reputation both as a poet and as a translator. But after H.N. Coleridge and the Blackwood's critic praised Coleridge's trans— lations of Schiller's plays in 1834, they wre ignored until H.G. Bohn published the Standard Library edition of Coleridge's translation of Wallenstein in 1850. Then an examination of Coleridge's translation in comparison with the German original motivates the Westminster reviewer to challenge the previous critic who had praised Coleridge as "perhaps the solitary example of a man of very great original genius submitting to all the labours, and reaping all the honors of this species of literary exertion." The Westminster reviewer objects that no one could think Coleridge's translation equal to Schiller's play if he were familiar with the German original. Misconstructions, vapid paraphrases, omissions, and spurious additions, abound in Mr. Coleridge's translation, to an supplemel should r4 editoria be utter those at The crit forward the verl mlconge1 Colerid transla % critic and the that t} had on S C9.11615 144. extent which would certainly not meet with the approbation of any one who thoroughly understands the original. Whereas earlier critics had praised Coleridge's genius for supplementing Schiller's play, this critic insists that a translation should reflect the original work as nearly as possible. The reviewer editorializes that "mutilations and pseudo 'improvements' we hold to be utterly unpardonable; and unfortunately, as will be seen, some of those attempted by Coleridge border upon the ludicruous and grotesque."2 The critic contends that Schiller's characters use frank, straight— forward language that reflects their personalities and contrasts with the verbosity of Coleridge's translation in language that is wholly 3 Not only does the critic consider uncongenial with the subject. Coleridge quite pedantic, but he also declares that Coleridge does not translate some pages at all, and that sometimes a sublime passage in Wallenstein becomes ridiculous in Coleridge's translation. This critic makes a comprehensive textual study based on his own translations and the original text by Schiller to document his position. He shows that the Bohn edition of Wallenstein restores passages which Coleridge had omitted and returns to Schiller's arrangement of the acts and scenes. However, the critic also notes that the Preface to the Bohn lG.H.E., "Schiller's 'Wallenstein.‘ Translated by S.T. Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 53, July, 1850, p. 187. 2;§;g,, p. 187. 31bid., p. 188. .———— .— _’.—...— edition manuscri subseque and ever doubts 1 But the lines t1 that Co confine meddlin A critic Part of SUCh e1 dresS j Pretat is ext in 0th notice 145. edition defends Coleridge because he translated from a prompter's manuscript.' And the Preface includes the story that Schiller subsequently altered the play, omitting some passages, adding other; and even ingrafting several of Coleridge's adaptations. The reviewer doubts that Schiller changed the play after it was produced, however.l But the Bohn edition does include all of Coleridge's version, even lines that were not in Schiller's original;and the reviewer suggests that Coleridge would deserve more credit as a translator if he had confined himself to:a faithful interpretation and refrained "from meddling with the work."2 As earlier reviewers also noted errors of translation, this critic contends that the errors are too extensive to be considered only part of a free interpretation of the original because Coleridge makes such errors as turning a horse in the German version into a hunting— dress in his translation, and he radically alters character inter— pretations. Celeridge is sarcastically accused of adding dialogue that is extraneous to the plot and action in order to pay for his mutilations in other parts of the translation.3 After this savage denunciation, Coleridge's translation was not noticed again for fifteen years. Then, interest was resumed in 1861 lG.H.E., "Schiller's 'Wallenstein.’ Translated by S.T. Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 53, July, 1850, p. 190. 2;§;g., p. 191. 3Ibid., p. 193. F._i__ when the g Maltzahan of Schill4 The A_thg in its la The revie familiar are famij Although Original the stag agrees V lated E Printed the Sup reViewe which} Schille Whethe extant JUDiO] Scrip1 146. when the.Athenaeum published an announcement that.Herr.Wendelin von Maltzahan had published the previously little known stage manuscript 1 of Schiller's Wallenstein which had been in.the Royal Library at.Berlin. The Athenaeum notes that this 1799 manuscript differs from the tragedy in its later printed form and even from the first edition of 1800. The reviewer declares that although German readers would not be familiar with the division of acts and scenes in this manuscript, they are familiar to English readers because of Coleridge's translation. Although Coleridge's translation varies from the printed text of the original manuscript, the critic notes that it harmonizes perfectly with the stage manuscript published by Herr von Maltzahan. The reviewer agrees with Ferdinand Freiligrath's supposition that Coleridge trans— lated Wallenstein from a stage manuscript rather than from the first printed edition, and he declares that this copy of the play confirms the supposition. The Berlin copy of Wallenstein also arouses the reviewer's curiosity as to how Coleridge acquired the manuscript from which he translated because no connection had been established between Schiller and Coleridge. And the reviewer also raises the question of whether or not Coleridge's copy of Schiller's play might still be extant in England.1 A week later the Athenaeum published a letter from James Gillman Junior in which Gillman announces that he has this Wallenstein manu— script. Gillman says S.T. Coleridge gave the manuscript to his father 1"0ur Weekly Gossip," Athenaeum, No. 1750, May 11, 1861, p. 633. with a nr memmm The youn communic pasted i existed omission edition 111811115 cr: extant most of report with ti Freil‘n identii notes that t play a of 18C Whe the Eta p rr ('0 :3 147. with a note from Schiller that authenticates the copy of his play. And the manuscript includes several corrections in Schiller's own handwriting. The younger Gillman suggests that Coleridge and Schiller might have communicated through Professor Blumenbach because a note from him is pasted in the binding of the book. And Gillman says a vague tradition existed in his family that Coleridge suggested certain alterations and omissions in the play which Schiller partly adopted in his printed edition and which may help to account for the differences between the manuscript and the printed play. Gillman says he does not know of any extant letters from Schiller to Coleridge although Joseph Green has most of Coleridge's papers and manuscripts.1 The following month the Athenaeum printed Ferdinand Freiligrath's report on collating the Wallenstein manuscript in Gillman's possession with the one in Berlin. They corre3pond in all essential points, and Freilingrath asserts that Gillman's manuscript is genuine and the identical copy of the last part of Coleridge's translation. Freilingrath notes that Schiller's writing is in English characters, which indicates that the play was intended to be read by a foreigner.2 Schiller's play and Coleridge's translation were both published in June or July of 1800. Finding this manuscript prompts Freilingrath to speculate on whether Coleridge might also have had a manuscript of Wallenstein's Lager and The Piccolomini which are not in Gillman's library. 1"Our Weekly Gossip," Athenaeum, No. 1750, May 11, 1861, p. 663. 2F. Freflingrath, "Coleridge's Manuscript of Schiller's ‘Wallenstein,'" Athenaeum, No. 1755, June 15, 1861, p. 797. Th reportin loaned t contain the Lat: ‘ transla1 El frequen‘ lost th‘ F that Co SuPpose for his Scripts transl; some c L0ndon as wel manusc and th that 1 inOm ' . PlCO 1148. The following August the.Athenaeum printed Freilingrath's letter reporting that Schiller's verified copy of lhg_Piccolomini'had.been loaned to him by Mr. Henry R. Mark. Although the manuscript does not ' contain Coleridge's handwritten notes or as many of Schiller's notes as the Wallenstein manuscript,:Freilingrath concludes that Coleridge translated from this cepy and that Coleridge's careless habits and frequent changes of.residence could readily account for his having lost the manuscript.1 Freilingrath's discovery of these two manuscripts establishes that Coleridge had translated much more closely than had been previously supposed. Therefore, whereas during his lifetime Coleridge was praised for his innovations on Schiller's works, the discoveries of these manu- scripts enabled Freilingrath to praise Coleridge for a line by line translation. Freilingrath, like so many critics before him, points out some curious errors in Coleridge's translation, and he notes that the London manuscripts are important to the total corpus of Schiller's works as well as Coleridge's because they, particularly the London Wallenstein manuscript, have parts that were struck out in the Berlin manuscript and the later printed edition. Freilingrath again expresses the hope that the Wallenstein nggg manuscript might appear, but no further information on the subject was published. 1F. Freilingrath, "Coleridge's Manuscript of Schiller's 'Piccolomini,'" Athenaeum, No. 1766, August 31, 1861, p. 284. i T % indicat ‘ in the ‘ reviews an open ‘ Colerit ' reveal than a Signif during Besid i attua Polit -149. This.series of letters about Coleridge's translations is indicative of the kind of Coleridge scholarship that became prevalent ' in the Athenaeum in the later part of the century. Althoughthe reviews continued to be unsigned, the columns of this journal became an open forum in which scholars could explore various questions about Coleridge's life and Works. However, this series of letters that : reveal that Coleridge was an inaccurate but close translator rather than a poetic innovator on Schiller's work probably make the most significant contribution to Coleridge scholarship in this journal during the century. Coleridge's Prggg Reception between l§§§ Egg l§ZQ Beginning with the publication of the Specimens 9f_£h§_2§bl§_ Iél§“2£_§;2; Coleridge in 1835, the reception of Coleridge's prose differed significantly between 1835 and 1870 from what it was prior to Coleridge's death. The publication of Table Talk motivated critics to compare H.N. Coleridge's edition of his notes with their own recollections of S.T. Coleridge's oral presentation. A survey of this topic is included in Section A of this discussion of Coleridge's prose. Besides the edition of Coleridge's conversation in comparison with his actual Speech, critics also evaluated S.T. Coleridge's comments on politics, religion, and literary criticism as they are presented in the men 1835, br increasi II ofcfit Colerid critici opinion the p01 these a the eve Tale? \ editio Conver Prose, reVien to no dUrin; Conve 150. Table Talk. The religion and politics concerned critics much less after 1835, but Coleridge's literary criticism and philosophy received increasing.attention. In 1837 H.N. Coleridge published some of S.T. Coleridge's fragmentS' of criticism as Literagy Remains. Subsequently, new editions of Coleridge's works and other publications by and about Coleridge motivated criticisms of his philosophy and literary criticism, especially his opinions of Shakespeare. Therefore, Section B of this Part considers the politics, religion, and philosophy of this period beginning with these aspects of the reviews of the Table Talk. Section C includes the evaluations of Coleridge's literary criticism which began with the Tgblg Talk in 1835. A. Coleridge's Conversational Ability as Reflected in the Egblg gay; Beginning with William Hazlitt's review of S.T. Coleridge's edition of three poems in 1816, critics consistently praised Coleridge's conversational powers regardless of whether or not they approved of his prose, poetry, or life. Even in his denial of having written the review of these poems in a note appended to Hazlitt's review of the Biographia Literaria in 1817, Francis Jeffrey departs from his rebuttal to note that he was fascinated with Coleridge's conversational powers during his visit at Keswick. John Bowring also mentions Coleridge's conversatinal powers in his review of the poetry in 1830, and H.N. Coleridg convers an T works. was rev T and ggb persona prose V persua: COleri. Tank. S.T. C and g . years 111ElStei Praisr Coler ‘ Wheth or hi I 151. Coleridge's 1834 review of Coleridge's poems considers Coleridge's conversational powers before he published Specimens pf £§E.EE§JE.I§$E prSLT; Coleridge in 1835. The Igpl§.T§1k_was the most widely reviewed of any of S.T. Coleridge's works. Besides two brief critical notices in the Athenaeum, the book was reviewed by all three of the quarterlies. The Quarterly, Edinbur h, and Athenaeum attempt to evaluate the prose record against the critics' personal recollections of Coleridge's speaking ability. As with the prose works published during Coleridge's lifetime, the political persuasion of the journals and the personal attitudes of critics toward Coleridge relate to the response of the reviewersto Coleridge's 13212 Talk. The Westminster Review limited its comments to an attack on S.T. Coleridge's later political views as recorded in the Igplg.lglk, and Blackwood's did not comment on Coleridge's conversation until ten years later when DeQuincey notes that those who had actually heard the master speak.were rapidly declining in numbers. And DeQuincey also praises Coleridge's genius for conversation. In their evaluations of the style and subject matter of Coleridge's conversation, the major questions reviewers asked were whether or not H.N. Coleridge provided an accurate transcription of S.T. Coleridge's conversation and whether the speaker's personality' or his subject matter created the dominant effect. Because most critics compared their personal recollections of S.T. Coleridge's conversations with th fl co and rec evaluat tasks c that we 1 it is I Praise. review for re Coleri 0n the lectm LG, 1 the c< Coler: eXpre: of Co 011 ho M 152. with the prose.version recorded by.H.N. Coleridge, reviews of Tgplg Talk contain more evaluation of H.N. Coleridge's contribution as editor and recorder than previous critical essays that concentrated on evaluations of the subject matter in general. And this interest in the tasks of the editor heralds the preoccupation with texts and editions that was prevalent after 1870. As H.N. Coleridge was associated with the Tory Quarterly Review, it is not surprising that he was first, frequently, and most fully praised in reviews of the Tppl§_3§lk in that journal. In the first review of February, 1835, John Gibson Lockhart praises H.N. Coleridge for recording S.T. Coleridge's conversation and describes S.T. Coleridge as Samuel Johnson's natural heir as a conversationalist.l 0n the negative side, Lockhart notes S.T. Coleridge's tendency to lecture rather than converse. Because Coleridge talked in a monologue, J.G. Lockhart also expresses regret that H.N. Coleridge did not cast the conversations in a more dramatic form. But Lockhart notes Coleridge's pleasant smile and ability to charm his audience and expresses the hope that other people will record their recollections of Coleridge's conversations.2 Lockhart also ranges beyond the recorded gppgg_g§;g to speculate on how Coleridge might have more effectively utilized his conversational lJ.G. Lockhart, "Specimens of the Table—Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 53, February, 1835, p. 80. 21bid., p. 81. powers univers E t c u s i Lockhal or her Noneth benign health Source circnn beautj and p] is an Lockh a way CURVE COncl “Otic Subtl liar- powers if he had taken orders in the church or had held a post.at a university. Had it been possible that such a man should ever have taken up the trade of a demagogue; either in the pulpit or on the hustings, what power must have been his! The more unintelligible his strain, the greater of course, so the watchwords were skillfully chosen, w0uld have been its potency. Lockhart again reflects the critical theory that Coleridge was indolent or he would have utilized his conversational powers to greater advantage. Nonetheless Lockhart declares that Coleridge's conversations reflect a benignity, charity, and hopefulness in the face of adversity and ill health. This attitude is attributed to Coleridge's recognition that the source of all his misgivings lay in himself. Lockhart notes the pitiful circumstances in which "this great light of his time and country, this beautiful poet, this exquisite metaphysician, this universal scholar, and profound theologian" lived his last years.2 Coleridge's poverty is attributed to the Whig government that revoked his pension. Thus, Lockhart adds a political note and recommends that the government find a way to Support such genius. After this review, the Quarterly also referred to Coleridge's conversation in various articles on other subjects. An 1852 reviewer concludes that Coleridge's finest written works convey only a feeble notion of the profusion of ideas, the brilliancy of imagery, the subtlety of speculation, and the sweep of knowledge which distinguished lJ.G. Lockhart, "Specimens of the Table—Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 53, February, 1835, p. 81. 21bid., p. 83. his int that Cl a reve reflec Recon procee was in attitu even i great reviev conve1 later normal and s: avoid the r not a of re 1852) Jahue 154. his inexhaustible colloquial displays.l An 1855 Quarterly critic notes that Coleridge's conversation was in the nature of a monologue, or even a reverie with mystic magnificence.2 A less praiseworthy attitude is reflected by an 1860 Quarterly critic who contends that Leslie's Recollections of Coleridge's remarks are the sort that could have proceeded from any well—read, thoughtful man, and Coleridge's fascination was in his delivery rather than what he said.3 But the complimentary attitude is resumed in 1867 when another Quarterly critic contends that even if Coleridge had written nothing, his inapiration would have been great because of his conversations.4 Although John Lockhart achieves a careful sympathy in his first review of the léhlé.lélk by praising H.N. Coleridge for recording the conversation rather than evaluating the conversation itself, and the later Quarterly reviewers generally praise Coleridge's conversation, the normally sympathetic Athenaeum is less responsive in its first notice and suggests that a more careful reading before publication might have avoided some of the crude "bald dogmatism." This charge is modified by the reviewer's suggestion that H.N. Coleridge's compiling efforts are not at fault. Because Coleridge discoursed in complex, subtle chains of reasoning that required nearly as complex a mind as his own to 1"Memoirs of Wordsworth," Quarterly Review, Volume 92, December, 1852, p. 201. 2"Table—Talk," w” Volume 98, December, 1855, p. 30. 3"Recollections of Leslie," rig” Volume 107, April, 1860, p. 481, 4”Charles Lamb and Some of His Companions," Ibid., Volume 122, January, 1867, p. 13. i 1 i ‘1 follow, his cor note s1 result flavor m reassu judici Strike 9333 d philos contra IEVis revia with 1835. essen S ilen 155. follow, the reviewer beliyes Coleridge himself could not have recorded his conversation faithfully two hours later, and a compiler could only note some brief and disjointed.sentences. The reviewer describes the result as a compressed essence that is serviceable but lacks the true flavor of the original.1 This opinion is somewhat modified in the Athenaeum's second notice of Tabl§_lal§ which begins with an apologetic reassurance that although the volumes could have been edited more judiciously, although some comments on politics and political economy strike the reader too forcibly and obtrusively, the reader learns to pass disturbing notes to reach the treasure house of poetry and philosophy, of sweet and enduring thoughts.2 The forced compliments of the Quarterly Review and Athenaeum contrast with two reviews in the Whig Edinburgh Review; the first a review of ggblg Talk in April, 1835, and the second Francis Jeffrey's review of the table talk of Coleridge's old enemy Sir James Mackintosh with a comparison between the two conversationalists in October of 1835. The first Edinburgh review of Table_2§l§ describes Coleridge as essentially a poet whose indulgences and infirmity of purpose kept him silent in later years.3 The reviewer declares that Coleridge's poetry 1"Specimens of the Table-Talk of the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 395, May 23, 1835, p. 388. 2"Specimens of the Table—Talk of the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge 'Second Notice,'” Athenaeum, No. 396, May 30, 1835, p. 406. 3"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 130. and pro Colerid and met some in dark hi realizi When c poetry never Kantia less a and de fragme t0 le( the 1 kind 4 Sign]: refle COler [.11 p. E: 0" / 156. and prose had apurposeless and fragmentary character although Coleridge acquired a wide but dubious reputation as a poet, moralist, and metaphysician. Coleridge's writing appears to this critic to have some indistinct principles which Coleridge sought to illustrate with dark hints and allusions, "always approaching, but never wholly realizing the production of a distinct and finite-idea."l The Edinburgh reviewer declares that Coleridge was at his best ' when contemplating questions of psychology in connection with religion, poetry, and the social life of man. But the critic.believes Coleridge never went far toward his purpose in exploring the Platonic and Kantian theories of the mind because he exhausted himself in purpose— less and hopeless exertion that produced only a state of melancholy and dejection coupled with various physical ailments.2 Besides the fragmentary nature of Coleridge's study, the critic notes his tendency to lecture his listeners. The reviewer also contends that although the listeners were held under Coleridge's conversational spell by a kind of transcendental inspiration, what seemed to have a deep significance in Coleridge's presence might not stand analysis and reflection later.3 Consequently, the reviewer doubts that much of Coleridge's conversation was worth preserving. 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 130. 2;§;g., p. 133. 31bid., p. 132. —__ 1 his unc Coleri: tenden< Egiyhlg Coleri< that S they W( in Fra talk a Coleri "Thala the ot ing t5 the re book ( Jeffn S-T.l could Colet 1iSte UIIClo JElnes 157. The reviewer also notes H.N. Coleridge's.tendency to eulogize his uncle,.but the most damaging criticisms are made against S.T. Coleridge as the reviewer notes his incomplete philosophy and his. tendency to plagiarize from himself as well as from others. This Edinburgh.reviewer reflects the old antagonisms toward the Tory S.T. Coleridge, but the negative comments are toned down by the conclusion that S.T. Coleridge was sincere in his views no matter how impractical they were, and he was not malicious or violent.' Even this limited tolerance of Coleridge's views is not reflected in Francis Jeffrey's comparison between Sir James Mackintosh's table talk and that of S.T. Coleridge. Jeffrey had not reviewed S.T. Coleridge's works previously although his 1802 essay on Robert Southey's "Thalaba the Destroyer" had included brief remarks on Coleridge and the other Lake Poets. However, Coleridge had attacked Jeffrey's review— ing tactics in the Biographia Literaria, and Jeffrey had added a note to the review of that book to the effect that he had not reviewed Coleridge's book of three poems. Fifteen years later, after S.T. Coleridge's death, Jeffrey lashes back at Coleridge. Jeffrey is particularly incensed by S.T. Coleridge's remark that Mackintosh had so little to say that you could stamp "Warehouse to let" on his forehead.1 Jeffrey believes that Coleridge's circular conversations left little to be carried away by the listener, a mortifying contrast with Sir James Mackintosh's powerful and unclouded intellect.2 lFrancis Jeffrey, "Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honorable Sir James Mackintosh," Edinburgh Review, Volume 62, October, 1835, p. 242. 21bid., p. 243. in lat and af and dr reply ‘ ' excess l Mackin ‘ Sugges 1 man WC age'fl mfiu US f0: ‘ Jeffn had a a def: cente for a dEath hill] p COleI 01‘ PE sir; P- 22 158. .Jeffrey further contends that Coleridge's views.were corrupted in later.years.because he was.steadily out of touch with the Opinions and affairs of the world. Coleridge's confidence in his.own dogmas and dreams increased, Jeffrey suggests, because no one was allowed to reply when Coleridge talked during the Highgate Thursdays. Besides excessive egotism and impuning such personalities as Sir James Mackintosh, Jeffrey declares that Coleridge's predictions of evil and suggestions for intolerant and tyrannical remedies are such that no man would believe came from a cultivated intellect of the contemporary age "...if the early history of this particular intellect had not indicated an inherent aptitude for all extreme opinions,——and prepared us for the usual conversion from one extreme into another."1 Thus Jeffrey repeats the chief objection to Coleridge's changing views that had also been levelled at the Biographia, that such changes represent a deficiency of character. In comparison with Coleridge, Jeffrey contends that Sir James Mackintosh had maintained consistent respect for authority in law, property, marriage, and religion. After his death, as in life, Coleridge was evaluated by the critics who had known him personally and who continued the evaluations made during his lifetime as in the case of John Gibson Lockhart, who in 1819 had praised Coleridge as one of the great geniuses not just of England of all Europe, or personal antagonism in the case of Francis Jeffrey, who praised lFrancis Jeffrey, "Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honorable Sir James Mackintosh," Edinburgh Review, Volume 62, October, 1835, p. 244. Coleri of the in the attack saum conclu record Works also. Polit QEQEE earli But t POrti SEnsE Predc revie Cole] diffé 159. Coleridge's old enemy.at Coleridge's expense. And the political positions of the journals parallel the personal attitudes of the critics writing in them. The Tories praised their fellow Tory Coleridge, and the Whigs attacked the rival Tory Coleridge while the Athenaeum continued in.its semi—neutral.leaning toward Coleridge. But the final compromising conclusion critics reached about the Table Talk is that it was worth: recording. B. Coleridge's Politics, Religion, and Philosophy a. Politics Coleridge's gghlg Talk and subsequent publications of his prose works motivated criticiSm not only of his conversational manner but also of his philosophy, religion, and politics. By 1835 Coleridge's political views were in the process of going out of date. The Quarterly acknowledged this, and the Edinburgh contended that Coleridge's earlier democratic poems were more popular than the later Tory statements. But the Westminster Review concentrated its review on the political portions of Egblgigglk in an attack reminiscent of the earlier sensational criticism in Blackwood's. Interest in Coleridge's politics predominated over his religious and philosophical views in all quarterly reviews of ggplg.g§;g, but subsequent critics paid little attention to Coleridge's political opinions. Because of Coleridge's tendency to argue different positions for different audiences, one goal of the Quarterly and Edinburgh reviewers of the They co of poli produce slaves reviews had not Coleri: evil re both rt in the that C review hecaus Vision dEmer Proble the es ViEWs good h M is 160. of the ggblg_3§lk_was to assess Coleridge's true political views. They conclude that Coleridge was pessimistic about the current state' of politics, about the prevalent belief that infant schools would produce better behaved children, and about the idea that freeing the slaves would make more willing workers. Therefore, the Quarterly reviewer suggests that Coleridge would have had more optimism if he had not been so ill or had lived longer. And Lockhart adds that Coleridge did believe the Reform Bill would produce more good than evil results by extending electoral suffrage. On the other hand, both the Edinburgh review of Tgblgiiglk_and Francis Jeffrey's comments in the review of Sir James Mackintosh's Igblg,lglk_take the position that Coleridge was an unrealistic visionary. The first of these two reviewers contends that Coleridge turned to the Tory perspective because he attached himself to whatever was most impractical and visionary as he attempted to marry high aristocratic principles with democratic institutions.2 Because this Whig critic recognizes the problem of attempting to supply individual democratic needs through the established aristocratic hierarchy, he concludes that Coleridge's views are unreconcilable because Coleridge believes in the people's good but not in their rights.3 Coleridge wanted to reconcile people lJ.G. Lockhart, "Specimens of the Table—Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 53, February, 1835, p. 103. 2"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 141. 3kg” p. 140. and gox governn idealis for the ] mmopu opinio Jeffre his 1110 critic of int he cou was di his ge Sound Then ; Swjm revere during polit sir J P- 24 161. and government by means of a democratic church and an aristocratic government, but the Whig critic sarcastically suggests that Coleridge's idealism was unimpeded by practical or workable methods of implementation . . . . l for the reform of established institutions. Francis Jeffrey is even more sarcastic as he recounts Coleridge's unp0pular political views. Instead of concluding that Coleridge's opinions changed because he was a visionary in search of an ideal, Jeffrey concludes that Coleridge changed because of a deficiency in his moral character. Jeffrey acknowledges, as did the earlier Edinburgh critic, that Coleridge has some poetic sensibility as well as visions of intellectual sublimity and glimpses of comprehensive truths which he could not reduce into order. But Jeffrey concludes that Coleridge was disqualified "not only by his defects, but by the best parts of his genius, as well as by his temper and habits, from forming any sound judgment on the business and affairs of our actual world." Then Jeffrey notes that Coleridge's preposterous judgments on such subjects as politics and religion are what Coleridge's memory is revered for in spite of the fact that these aspects were laughed at during his lifetime.2 But in 1835 the Westminster Review most vehemently attacks the political views expressed in Table Talk, the Tory views of Coleridge's 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 141. 2Francis Jeffrey, "Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honorable Sir James Mackintosh," Edinburgh Review, Volume 62, October, 1835, p. 247. later chara Jacob came opini more like worth not a Educ; "puff Paru arist from thi Subs SUPP Cone cont mutu of C 162. later years. Like Jeffrey, this critic contends that Coleridge's.weak character caused him to change from a staunch Jacobin to an anti+ Jacobin. This critic declares that such a deserter is harmless to the cause he leaves, but the change caused Coleridge to voice his new opinions more strongly than.necessary, and these Opinions were valued more highly than they were worth by his new Tory associates. Again like Jeffrey, the critic contends that Coleridge's opinions are worthwhile in areas he knows such as literary criticism, but they are not acceptable on such subjects as the national debt and pOpular education.1 The reviewer defends Malthus and attacks Coleridge as a "puffed—up partisan" although this critical essay is also highly partisan, favoring reforms that oppose Coleridge's defense of the aristocratic status quo and resenting the fact that Coleridge turned . . 2 . from a reformist to a c0nservat1ve. Coleridge's comment on the unwillingness of the laboring class to work more than enough for subsistence prompts the critic to mention that Coleridge himself was supported on the pension list.3 Finally, the Westminster reviewer concludes that Coleridge's Table Talk is a "vulgar tirade" appropriately continued in print as a reward to him and the Tory party for their mutual ignorance and barbarism. The reviewer summarizes his opinion of Coleridge as follows: 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 22, April, 1835, p. 532. 21bid., p. 533. 31bid., p. 535. SO reVi l than 163. The real.state of the case appears to be, that the Tory sophist was a man of little soul, whom chance in his earlier days threw into the way of liberal opinions, and a not uncommon idiosyncracy of attraction towards the possessors of wealth and power speedily carried over into his proper place. He has had his reward; and 'his works will follow him.' The reviewer characterizes the Tory party as remote from useful truth and clinging to all harmful darkness, and the reader is asked to judge if Providence really could have intended such dark and untaught men, so "rootedly unjust," to retain the power of the state. Thus, the review of Coleridge's ggp;g_g§;§ serves as a vehicle to advocate a change in government. This piece in the Westminster Review is the last occasion on which Coleridge's politics serve as a living vehicle to advocate change. In fact, they pass out of critical notice except for John Stuart Mill's much more tolerant opinion of Coleridge's political views, if not of his views on political economy in Mill's comparison between Bentham's and Colerige's political statements in 1840. In most of his discussion Mill emphasizes Bentham's theories while he believes Coleridge provides an opposition contribution in the overall progression toward truth in politics and social reform. But in his theories of government, Mill declares that Coleridge has a more comprehensive theory than Bentham. Mill believes Coleridge based his idea of government on the needs and interests of the people as these needs evolved rather than on the 1"Specimens of the Table-Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 22, April, 1835, p. 537. resu crit ment cont ment stat usef prog and IEpr like Posi of c the econ bett Cole P011 COnt Cole the: Janl 164. results of external forces. Whereas the earlier Edinburgh.Review critic charged that Coleridge did not reconcile the.people and govern- ment authority, Mill sees the two powers of permanence and progression contending for Opposite interests under Coleridge's theory of govern- ment.‘ As Mill interprets Coleridge's views, landed property represents the conservative interest of permanence whereas the progression of a state depends on the diffusion of information and knowledge that are useful and necessary for all.1 Coleridge's four major areas of progression are: the mercantile, the manufacturing, the distributive, and the professional. These and the landed interests should be represented in the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament.2 Quite likely, one reason Mill sees Coleridge's political views in a more positive light is that he considers them on the broader basis of all of Coleridge's writings without the focus on ggblg_3§lk_that influenced the opinion of critics in 1835. But Mill does contend that on political economy Coleridge writes "like an arrant driveller" who would have a 3 better reputation if he had never written on the subject at all. But Coleridge is best at pointing out the flaws in the preceding government policies of his own Tory party. For Mill, Coleridge's greatest political contribution is reviving the idea of a trust inherent in landed property. Coleridge declares that land is the source of subsistence for all and therefore cannot be considered as absolute prOperty in the sense of 1John Stuart Mill, "Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 33, January, 1840, p. 290. 2 . Ibid., p. 291. 31bid., p. 293. thir inte fore the achi cont Mil] Viev we IE foH the toj Janl 165. things that do not bear so directly on the.general interest.l Mill interprets this to.mean that Coleridge advocates land reform. There— fore, Mill concludes that Coleridge represents a liberal element among the conservatives, and Mill.believes reforms are most likely to be achieved within the conservative party. But regardless of the contemporary reaction to Coleridge's conservative political philosophy, Mill says it would have value if for no other reason than to accustom men to giving a reason for their Opinion, "be the opinion ever so untenable, the reason ever so insufficient."2 Thus, Coleridge's political views passed from an explosive contemporary critical issue to the objectivity of obsolescence. b. Religion As critics were concerned with Coleridge's changing political views and the influence of these views on the public; in religion they were also interested in Coleridge's transition from Anglicanism to Unitarianism and back as well as with his influence on his religious followers. In the Edinburgh Review essay on Iablg_$§lk, the reviewer notes the tendency of young enthusiasts who support the church Establishment to favor Coleridge's more radical statements although he contends that 1John Stuart Mill, "Coleridge,” Westminster Review, Volume 33, January, 1840, p. 295. 21bid., p. 302. Cole] libe1 perpl the E a dew inqu; and1 1 1 1 1‘ re... 1 1 1 1 H. .. than more 1 1 | m 1 the 1 View I 1 Jeff ofm rega relj Sir 247. 166. Coleridge had a basically moderate religious attitude. And Coleridge's liberal interpretation of the Bible is recommended to students who are perplexed how to distinguish between the letter and the inspiration of the Scriptures. This reviewer also notes that Coleridge's changing religious views were bound to excite distrust in those who believe in a devout acceptance of the laws of the church rather than in intellectual inquiry of the kind that led Coleridge away from the Church of England and then back With a deeper understanding. Francis Jeffrey traces Coleridge's religious transitions in a less complimentary fashion. He notes that Coleridge first said his religious views were more radical than those of the Unitarians. Then as his own religious opinions became more conservative, Coleridge announced that he could not believe the Unitarians were Christians. This conservative trend continued, according to Jeffrey, until Coleridge finally announced that Dissenters such as the Unitarians should be persecuted.l Jeffrey concludes that Coleridge's views followed this unsympathetic change in attitude toward dissenters as his own views returned to the position of the Church of England. And Jeffrey regards this change, like that in Coleridge's politics, as a sign of moral inconsistency. John Stuart Mill is much more sympathetic toward Coleridge and regards him as a catholic and unsectarian spirit who tried to harmonize religion and philosophy. Critics often repeat the theme that Coleridge lFrancis Jeffrey, "Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honorable Sir James Mackintosh,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 62, October, 1835, p. 247. atte: Cole also He m the COIN thei incl Bent cree that °PP< vie Put Gm 184 167. attempted to harmonize the two without success in their discussions of Coleridge's theology and philosophy. Like most of these critics Mill also praises Coleridge's plea for liberty to criticize the Scriptures on the basis that God informed the minds of the writers with the truths He meant to reveal and left the rest to their human faculties.l As with his discussion of Coleridge's philosophy and politics, the distinctive feature of Mill's evaluation of Coleridge's religious views is his attempt to fit them into the Benthamite tradition. Mill concludes that all religious sects are right in the positive part of their tenets although commonly wrong in the negative. Comparing Coleridge's defense of the Establishment with Bentham's inclination to reform the Church and State, Mill concludes that while Bentham's followers would demand the extinction of the institutions and creeds which had previously existed, Coleridge's followers would demand that they be made a reality.2 Mill's goal, then, is to fuse these opposites to achieve a complete truth as he believes "the powers they wield are opposite poles of one great force of progression." Mill's political emphasis on combining Coleridge's and Bentham's views for the progression of society contrasts sharply with the opinion put forth by Walter Pater in the Westminster Review in 1866. As Pater contends that Coleridge's quest for absolutes in philoSOphy was lJ.S. Mill, "Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 33, January, 1840, p. 300. 2;g;g., p. 283. 3Ibid., p. 284. unrez Cole] have cultl mist accq sino with happ is m Dog-m COnt Ofa thou ash hist Worl life 168. unrealistic in a relativistic world, Pater similarly believes Coleridge's quest for absolutes in religion and even religion itself have become obsolete in a world dominated by the relativistic goals of culture and joy. Although Walter Pater regards theology as an accumulation of mistaken opinions that have been discarded as knowledge increased, he accepts the dogmas that remain as preciOus memorials of a class of sincere and beautiful Spirits "who in a past age of humanity struggled with many tears if not for true knowledge, yet for a noble and elevated happiness."l Most important is the struggle for happiness, and dogma is only the shadowy expression received as tradition in an altered age. Dogmatic theology, therefore, must be treated as history. Pater contends that Coleridge had many of the positive elements of the method of analysis suitable for a study of theology, "learning, inwardness, a subtle psychology, and a dramatic power of sympathy with modes of thought other than his own," but he lacks the recognition of theology as history.2 And as Coleridge lacks the ability to place theology in an historical context, he also contends that to reject the supernatural world means evolving a life of narrow horizons in which the spiritual life would evaporate all together. Pater, on the other hand, views the 1Walter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 59. 21bid., p. 59. spir its and reli For prec of o the in r crit 0pin theo 83ne inte 169. spiritual element as a passion for inward perfection "with its sorrows, its aspirations, its joy." But the religious graces of an inward life and culture have an intellectual shape because aSpects of the religious character, for Pater, have an artistic worth distinct from their religious import; and this inward joy is expressed in artistic works. For Pater, then, longing, a chastened temper, and spiritual joy are precious states of mind, not because of man's duty to God or as a means of obtaining a spiritual reward, but rather as a means of triumphing over the dead world of routine. Therefore, in contrast with Coleridge's View, Pater contends that religious belief can be eliminated, but spiritual sweetness must remain because it is necessary to intellectual life. Pater concludes that Coleridge's religious orientation is a reflection of an era that is passing away as the spiritualities of Christian life are broadened into a more general spirituality and cultural joy.l Although Walter Pater feels that Coleridge's quest for absolutes in religion represents a passing era, he also believes that previous critics exaggerated the vagueness and fluidity of Coleridge's theological Opinions. Pater announces that the critic's task is to methodize these theological opinions, which Pater arranges under three headings: the general principles of supernaturalism, orthodox dogmas, and the interpretation of Scripture. lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 56. theo cmum 1 1 1 worl 1 Cole the: ‘ sens for supe V the 1 firs then thin degm beli the 170. Aidgygngeflection is the source of Pater's criticism of Coleridge's theory of a supernaturalism in which a divine.person is in immediate communication with the human mind. For Pater Coleridge's proof of a world above the world of sense as the fulfillment of the constitution of man is an example of the exploded doctrine of final causes. Whereas Coleridge contends that man and nature coordinate all activities through the intact ideas within them, Pater believes flowers grow because of sensible causes rather than intact ideas and man's senses are also made for a sensible world.l Under the second heading, orthodox dogmas, Pater thinks Coleridge was right to support church dogma in combination with his support of supernaturalism. But Pater contends that Coleridge's attempt to prove the rationality of the dogmas of theology failed because Coleridge first confused the two kinds of reason that he derived from Kant and then failed to adequately define "reason" and "understanding."2 Although walter Pater contends that Coleridge was a conservative thinker in his theory of the supernatural and his support Of church dogma, on the third issue, the interpretation of Scripture, Pater believes Coleridge is innovative to the extent that he might be regarded as the founder of the modern liberal school of English theology. Like the reviewers of Tghlg Tglk Pater describes Coleridge as the one who lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 56. 21bid., p. 58. mod for is the of dew Pat. but for ins the Col des nha 11am. 171. inaugurated a theory of Scriptural criticism in which the Bible is a modified inspiration important not so much for the specific parts.as for the spirit embodied in the total work. Because Coleridge's theory is founded on his quest for absolutes, Pater believes a more satisfactory theory could be devised with an understanding of the relative Spirit of the moral world which, like the physical world, changes, grows, and develops. Because of this theory that the moral world also evolves, Pater contends that the Bible must be treated as a literary product; but this is also a conditional perspective. ,Because Pater believes Coleridge could not succeed in his quest for absolutes, he regards Coleridge's Confessions 9f_§p_lnguuing Spirit as a warning against retarding compromises in what he considers Coleridge's fallacious search for truth and light.1 Besides seeing a basic fallacy in his approach, Pater challenges the language of Coleridge's religious writing because it is.strained and broken and lacks joy and.because Coleridge was too much influenced by inferior theological literature. Because Coleridge tries to stimulate and inspire his readers with what Pater believes were insipid elements that the human spirit had already rejected, Pater concludes that much of Coleridge's religious writing was boring and depressing. And Pater describes Confessions 9f_§n_lnguiring Spirit as the little book that "had done more than any other of Coleridge's writings to discredit his name with the orthodox." lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 59. susp Cole to f natt esta the the need absc imp] Prat that bett that Pers relj A i A, ,Al*_i_i , 172. As Coleridge's changing.religious viewslnd caused critics to: suspect him.of a weak moral character during his lifetime, by 1866 Coleridge is being challenged on almost the opposite grounds,.attempting to find absolute standards that would not change in a world that is based on constant evolution. Both John Stuart Mill and Walter Pater interpret Coleridge's religious views, like his philosophical views, on the basis of what they can contribute to the improvement of human nature and society. But Mill sees Coleridge's defense of the religious establishment as a partial side of the total picture that can enrich the Benthamite tradition and drive toward human progress by presenting the other side of the subject and ultimately showing the true road to human progress. Pater also stresses human progress, but he sees the need for constant change and improvement that Coleridge's quest for absolutes could only retard. Mill stresses the end goal of human improvement that Coleridge's and Bentham's quests lead toward by providing various perspectives that evolve into the best approach to that goal, whereas Pater stresses the means to human improvement, the better.methods of evolving human perfection that entail recognizing that absolutes cannot be attained. But the Westminsgg£_utilitarian perspective prevails in both of their interpretations of S.T. Coleridge's religious views. c. Philosophy Although Coleridge's philosophical views were briefly noted in Haz E Co] the vie 858 and tho W01“ Wit 173. Hazlitt's criticisms of the Biographia Literaria and the Statesman's Manual and in Blackwood's two articles on the Biographia during S.T. Coleridge's lifetime, all of these critics were more interested in his life and his disorganized prose style than in the philosophical theories that S.T. Coleridge advanced. After 1817 Coleridge's philosophical views were little noticed even in the series of reviews of Table Talk and the Literary Remains in 1835 and 1837. But in 1840 a Blackwood's essay by James Ferrier notes Coleridge's plagiarisms from Schelling, and John Stuart Mill compares Coleridge‘s philosophical Opinions with those of Bentham. After 1840 brief reviews of new editions of Coleridge's works andthose of his followers appeared occasionally in the Athenaeum with only minor evaluations of aSpects of Coleridge's philos0phy. But in 1866 Walter Pater evaluates Coleridge's theories in comparison with his own theories of the mind and its relationship to philosophy. Although Coleridge had been accused of plagiarizing many ideas from the Germans as early as 1820, and the same issue was raised in the Edinburgh Review of Table Talk in 1835, James Ferrier spells out Coleridge's borrowing from Schelling in the first volume of the Biographia Literaria in a Blackwood's essay of March, 1840. Ferrier notes that DeQuincey charged Coleridge with plagiarism in Tait's Magazine in 1834, and J.G. Hare's rebuttal appeared in the BritiSh Magazine in January, 1835, but neither of these critics had adequate information. Therefore, James Ferrier reports on nineteen pages Of 116E Bic prc fro f the Col sta Col WEI bad SOC hot new 174. nearly exact translation from Schelling in the first volume of the Biographia. Although this is the only plagiarism for which Ferrier provides concrete evidence, he suggests that Coleridge also plagiarized from Schlegel, Schiller, and Maasse.l Besides the charge of plagiarism, Ferrier also accuses Coleridge of trumping up the letter from a friend at the end of Volume One of the Biographia to avoid finishing the philOSOphical discussion because Coleridge did not succeed in his effort to unravel Schelling's shadowy statements on the imagination. One excuse Ferrier presents for Coleridge's plagiarism is that his moral and intellectual conformation were modified by taking opium.2 Although Ferrier believes this topic is too distressing to pursue, he insists that Coleridge must be used as an example to show that plagiarism will eventually be found out, as a warning to other would—be plagiarists.3 As Coleridge's moral qualities were evaluated as a basis for positive influence on the readers, this discussion of Coleridge's borrowings from the Germans and Cottle's justifications for making revelations about Coleridge's drug addiction show the critical tendency to hold the writer up as a bad example if he cannot serve as a good example for the moral and social improvement of the readership. As a Blackwood's critic brands Coleridge a plagiarist for his borrowings from the Germans, John Stuart Mill gives Coleridge a 1James F. Ferrier, "The Plagiarisms of S.T. Coleridge," Blackwood's Magazine, Volume 47, March, 1840, p. 297. 2;p;g,, p. 299. 31bid., p. 296. SE! of am vie she Co] Co] b0L 175. secondary rating as a philosopher because Coleridge derived a series of ideas that did not make up a complete system from the Germans and notes that his work was paralleled by the French philosophers. As a first rate philosopher Mill holds up Jeremy Bentham as an example because Bentham organized a philosophical theory based on views adopted from his predecessors whereas Coleridge only created the shape of his doctrine and not the doctrine itself.1 But Mill credits Coleridge with influence beyond his acknowledged followers because Coleridge was the great awakener of a spirit of philosophy within the bounds of traditional opinion in England. As Coleridge suggested that all philOSOphy of the past had an initial obligation to either Aristotle or Plato, Mill believes all modern philosophy has an obligation to Bentham or Coleridge. Both of these men agree on the necessity of a philosophy and try to recall opinions to first principles, and Mill says they both recognize that * sound theory is the only foundation for sound practice, and that the basis of all philosophy rests in the philosophy of the mind.2 Mill's acceptance of absolute principles as the basis for both men's philosophical views associates him more closely with them than with Walter Pater, who in 1866 agrees with Mill that all philosophy rests on the philosophy of the mind; but Pater contends that the mind rests on relative 1John Stuart Mill, "Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 33, January, 1840, p. 260. 21bid. , p. 259. prl' Pat grc [I‘l‘lk l ‘I‘lllltl 18! 176. principles of knowledge that are constantly changing; consequently Pater believes a set of absolute principles are unattainable. But‘ in 1840 Mill accepts a basis of absolute principles in philosophy and distinguishes between the views of Bentham and Coleridge on other grounds. Bentham judged a prOposition true or false as it accorded or not with the result of his own inquiries; and did not search very curiously into what might be meant by the proposition, when it obviously did not mean what he thought true. With Coleridge, on the contrary, the very fact that any doctrine had been believed by thoughtful men, and received by whole nations or generations of mankind, was a part of the problem to be solved, was one of the phenomena to be accounted for. With this difference in the two men's approaches to knowledge, J.S. Mill attempts to assess Coleridge's contribution to contemporary philosophy. And Mill postulates that opposite points of view like those of Bentham and Coleridge tend to merge toward the middle position. The problem with all philosophy, according to Mill, is the tendency to see a partial truth as the whole truth and to overreact from one system to another as the deficiencies in one system are recognized and compensated for on the next cycle. Then Mill traces the "Germano- Coleridgian doctrine” as a reaction against eighteenth century philosophy. Mill also reviews the continental philosophical tradition of the eighteenth century, but he declines to consider Coleridge's particular statements on philOSOphy because they are fragmentary parts of an incomplete philosophical edifice which is necessarily subordinate lJ.S. Mill, "Coleridge,” Westminster Review, Volume 33, January, 1840, p. 279. I86 dex his th: id( 177. to the German philosophers because Coleridge followed them in time. Mill's intention, then, is to incite the reader to examine Coleridge's works for himself because Coleridge, like.other great thinkers, cannot really be evaluated until a different, objective school of philosophy develops. Coleridge's philosophical views were already permeating the works of other writers, however, and this was reflected in the 1848 Blackwoods review of Archdeacon Hare 's Guesses at Truth and Memoirs 9f John The reviewer contends that Coleridge's philosophical makeup Sterling. was not such as to lend a steady influence to men like Archdeacon Hare. This Tory Blackwood's reviewer is quite negative toward Coleridge and his followers. He suggests that besides self—complacency and the belief that they're right, the Coleridgean school of philosophers have several identifying characteristics. It is a class distinguished by the thorough contempt it manifests for all whom the world has been accustomed to consider as clear and painstaking thinkers—-by an over— weening, quiet arrogance——by a general indolence of mind interrupted by fitfpl efforts of thought, and much laborious trifling. The claim of indolence is carried over by this critic to Coleridge's followers as well. The reviewer attributes Coleridge's influence on Archdeacon Hare to Aids tg_Reflection. In this book the critic believes Coleridge replaces hard thinking with hard writing and engages in such l"Guesses at Truth," Blackw00d's, Volume 63, June, 1848, p. 701. Al 5 :x ( I... ( ..l h r e 0 t 1m ..D r m ..D 178. verbal quibbles with quotations from Leighton as might appear in any sermon.l The BlackWood's reviewer also expresses the Opinion that Coleridge's contribution from the German metaphysicians is overrated because little was known of the Germans and their views in England when Coleridge introduced them. Following his indolence theory, the critic contends that Coleridge could have produced a coherent philosophical position on the basis of the German views instead of producing only "a mere dim broken outline of a system of philosophy.” Nonetheless, the critic repeats the contention that although Coleridge did not successfully reconcile philosophy and theology, he did make brilliant sorties into both. As with Archdeacon Hare, Coleridge's loyal philosophical disciple, Joseph Henry Green, was only acknowledged briefly as Coleridge's student because "in fact, Green is not Coleridge."3 The publication of Seth Watson's edition of Coleridge's Theory 9£_Lif§_in 1849, Derwent Coleridge's edition of his father's Notes, Theological, Political and MiscellaneOus in 1853, and a new edition of The Friend in 1866, like Green's book, receive only brief notice in the Athenaeum. On Coleridge's Theory 9f_Life, the critic attacks the philosophical method Coleridge uses although the reviewer concludes that the book "demands l"Guesses at Truth," Blackwood's, Volume 63, June, 1848, p. 702. 21bid., p. 703. 3"l. Spiritual Philosophy: founded on the Teaching of the late Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 2022, July 28, 1866, p. 108. the cn‘ Co] whe the the in Co] buI Coi the . ‘ uth ‘1‘ 179. the studious and earnest perusal of the philosophic reader." The critic of Derwent Coleridge's series of books objects that S.T. Coleridge's "high thoughts, high aims, and high duties" were funneled into these fragmentary works. And The Friend prompts the critic to remark that Coleridge is a classic whose works will be read periodically when the occasion arrives for consulting them; but between occasions 3 the dust will collect.' These brief notices in the Athenaeum and the Blackwood's review of Archdeacon Hare's books noting Coleridge's influence on him in a decidedly negative vein are the only notice that Coleridge's philosophy received in these five journals between the positive but subsidiary evaluation by J.S. Mill and the attack for plagiarism by Ferrier in 1840 until Walter Pater's extended discussion of Coleridge's religion, philosophy, poetry, and literary criticism in the Westminster Review in 1866. In his review of Thomas A1180p's Letters, Conversations and Recollections 9f S.T. Colerid e, Walter Pater contends that Coleridge's philosoPhy is sufficiently out of date in 1866 to be understood in the frame of reference of the new ideas that had evolved. In a sense Pater fulfills J.S. Mill's 1840 declaration that Coleridge's philosophy had to wait for a new school of interpreters to give it a more objective evaluation. Pater contends that because of the relative Spirit with l”Hints towards the Formation of a more Comprehensive Theory of Life,” Athenaeum, No. 1111, February 10, 1849, p. 140. 2”Notes Theological, Political and Miscellaneous," Athenaeum, No. 1359, November 12, 1853, p. 1354. 3"The Friend: A Series of Essays by S.T. Coleidge,” Athenaeum, No. 1997, February 3, 1866, p. 171. whi Ste mo: 0116 pal frc Boe at! in1 180. which knowledge had come to be viewed, ascertained truth is turned into a dead letter. But Coleridge attempted to apprehend the absolute, to stereotype one form of faith, to attain "fixed principles" in politics, morals, and religion. Thus, Pater believes Coleridge attempted to fix one mode of life as the essence of life, refusing to see the parts as parts only. Besides tracing Coleridge's borrowings of theories of the mind from Hartley, Kant, and Schelling, Pater notes that men like Jacob Boehme and Coleridge are of the inward seeking temperament that attempt to see a mind latent inrature, struggling for release and intercourse with the intellect of man. Pater takes a dim view of Coleridge's concept that the lower forms of mind in nature, the latent intelligence, gradually worked to the surface and then the active mind of man further developed to free itself from the individual and particular until it formed an ideal that could become fixed in works of art.1 Nor is Pater impressed with Coleridge's distinction between imagination and fancy which Pater concludes really means a vigorous act of association that simplifies and restrains natural expressions of associations of ideas into an artifical order that refines and perfects the types of the human mind. For Pater, then, Coleridge's idea of the imagination becomes an Aristotelian theory of imitation lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 54. Cc H1. pc 181. modelled on Hartleyan principles in which associations of ideas from sense perception are turned into an artificial order in a work of art. In this case, Pater sees nothing new in Coleridge's theory because "everyone who can receive from a poem or picture a total impression will admit as much." But the major criticism that Pater levelsagainst Coleridge's philosophical views is that Coleridge is excessively serious. Humor, joy, and optimism are necessary, Pater believes, to shift one's positions in thought; and Coleridge excludes associations that have charm or gladness in them. Although Coleridge's philosophical views were not considered in the reviews of Igblg Talk, beginning in 1840 with James Ferrier's judgments of Coleridge as a plagiarist and J.S. Mill's conclusion that Coleridge was significant mainly as an opponent of the main philosophical tradition in England, it is possible to conclude that Coleridge's philosophy in this period received some thoughtful criticism in relation to the perspectives of the reviewers, particularly in the Westminster Review, but the conclusion critics reached was that Coleridge only added some fragmentary ideas to English philosophy, either his own or those of the Germans, and he still contributed no significant system of philosophy. The culmination of this criticism is Pater's suggestion that Coleridge sought absolutes in a relativistic World. Coleridge's philosophical goals, methods, and results,then, were all deemed of only fragmentary value to the society by various critics during this era. lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 51. V0 ,‘____———ma-—‘:—-__ -.L. 182. C. S.T. Coleridge's Literary Criticism a. Division One Although the Shakespeare criticism attracted most reviewers' attention as Coleridge's reputation as a literary critic increased during the period from 1835 to 1870, some other evaluations of his literary criticism also emerged. In the reviews of Table Talk, Literagy Remains,and the 1866 edition of Allsop's Letters, Recollections, and Conversations 9f S.T. Coleridge critics assess Coleridge's fragmentary literary criticism. The theory that Coleridge could have been a great literary critic if he had not been indolent is first expressed by the Edinburgh reviewer of Table Talk. He contends that Coleridge could have become a great editor of or commentator on the British classics. In the same vein, John Gibson Lockhart regrets that Coleridge turned to lecturing instead of condensing his critical views into a series of essays on the principle English authors because Lockhart believes twenty such essays would have constituted one of the most original works of modern times on the philosophy of polite literature.1 In this regard, the Edinburgh critic regrets that more literary criticism is not included in the Table Talk. This reviewer notes Coleridge's ability to perceive the mind and style of an author, but his criticisms are difficult to separate from other matters in which they are imbedded. Besides praising the lJ.G. Lockhart, "Coleridge's Literary Remains," Quarterly Review, Volume 59, July, 1837, p. 2. 183. perception and infinite taste of Coleridge's comments on earlier literature, this Whig critic contends that Coleridge's distinction between imagination and fancy is the "most complete and satisfactory refutation" of Wordsworth's poetical theory. The Edinburgh critic praises the criticism of the dead Coleridge in what is also an attack on the living Tory poet Wordsw0rth. The Tory critic Lockhart also observes that Coleridge's criticisms generally exhibit great shrewdness and subtbty.of thought and observation with a most genial and generous tone.2 Lockhart quotesenme of Coleridge's most courteous and perceptive criticisms of Dryden, Fielding, Johnson, Schiller, Scott, Byron, and Cervantes in support of this contention. He notes Coleridge's imaginative ability to see a latent identity in outwardly different things that enables him to reveal a depth of under— standing of the work he discusses.3 Reflecting the emphasis on the role of an author as a guide to the readership, Lockhart also praises Coleridge's inherently high moral character. Because Coleridge's writing naturally reflected a high degree of morality, Lockhart notes that his works did not conflict with the high moral standards that were expected of authors and their works by the 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 148. 2J.L. Haney attributes this essay to Lockhart whereas Walter Graham credits H.N. Coleridge. The essay's two distinct halves in the styles of the two authors suggest a dual authorship. 3J.G. Lockhart, "Specimens of the Table—Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 53, February, 1835, p. 93. C01 C02 t0 at1 Ha: pm tht C01 1-ltln 184. contemporary.periodical press. Lockhart suggests, however, that if Coleridge's views had conflicted with contemporary.standards, he would write according to what he believed rather than in fear of any reaction to his writing by the reviewers. On a similar moral note, Lockhart is attracted to Coleridge's suggestion that reading the lives of Baxter, Hamond, Milton, and Taylor might help the reader escape the idolatry of present times and fashions, to create the noblest kind of imaginative power in the soul, that of living in past ages. Lockhart also praises the quality of Coleridge's fragmentary dramatic criticism, but he contends that Coleridge's greatest merit is that he sets the reader thinking for himself but in a new light and witthowers and faculties unfelt and unknown before.1 This defense of Coleridge's inherent ' morality is also important because the second half of this essay also defends Coleridge against the revelations of his drug addiction, considered a serious moral weakness, in Joseph Cottle's recently published book. Besides the positive aspects of Coleridge's ability to see virtues and depth in various writers, and his tendency to write in an inherently moral manner, Lockhart suggests that the fragments of Coleridge's criticism have more organization than is often recognized because method and progression are provided by a unity based on the . 2 constantly felt presence of the author's personal feelings. Nonetheless, lJ.G. Lockhart, "Coleridge‘s Literary Remains," Quarterly Review, Volume 59, July, 1837, p. 10. 21bid., p. 6. 1lll| 185. Lockhart also notes negative aspects of Coleridge's criticism such as his tendency to depreciate Beaumont and Fletcher and Ben Jonson because he judges them against standards set by ShakeSpeare.l And Lockhart suggests that some trifles might as well have been 1ft out of the Literagy Remains. Other negative criticisms are that Coleridge was unwilling to compare and evaluate his own opinions in relation to those of other writers. Lockhart also notes that Coleridge is some— times a stern or even a cruel critic, and he had some prejudices that warped his judgment toward some of the great poets, eSpecially Pope. Overall, the criticisms of Coleridge as a literary critic in the period before 1840 suggest that he was a tolerant and perceptive critic, and this reputation is carried over in an 1850 note in a review of the Life and Letters 9f Robert Southey. This critic also notes Coleridge's tendency to advocate and practice positive criticism, pointing out the good qualities rather than the shortcomings of a literary work.2 On a similarly positive note Walter Pater suggests in 1866 that Coleridge came nearer to true and important principles in art criticism than in philosophy or theology because Coleridge tried ...to reclaim the world of art as a world of fixed laws-- to show that the creative activity of genius and the lJ.G. Lockhart, "Coleridge's Literary Remains," Quarterly Review, Volume 59, July, 1837, p. 24. 2J.G. Lockhart, "Life of Robert Southey,” Quarterly Review, Volume 88, December, 1850, p. 205. 186. simplest act of thought are but higher and lower productS‘ of the laws of a universal logic. But Pater stresses that joy should be part of the work of art, and Coleridge avoids the charming and joyous attributes of art and art criticism to concentrate on his quest for absolutes. Pater notes Coleridge's affirmation of the critical principle that the external reflects the being within, an absolute principle in the Sphere of art. Shakespeare is the natural example to support this theory, but Pater believes Coleridge exaggerates ShakeSpeare's dramatic unity into something like the unity of a natural organism. Thus, Pater believes Coleridge's Organic theory of art becomes mechanical because instead of the artist's being free to exert a self-possessed conscious— ness, he is a slave to the associations of something like an organic process of assimilation.2 Pater believes this organic theory shifts the emphasis from the work of art to the mind of the artist. Pater agrees that this is a true value, but he thinks it is the narrower side of a complete criticism. Pater believes the more important element is the work of art itself. In this respect Pater really provides a rebuttal for the association of ideas theory of criticism that had prevailed in earlier years and indicates the later emphasis on the work of art rather than the artist. In Spite of this, Pater does emphasize the need br joy in the artist to produce the best works of art. Pater concludes that Coleridge's quest for absolutes produces some successful metaphysical definitions and general theories of art lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 53. 21bid., p. 55. ccccc t C q a C e 187. criticism, but Coleridge does not succeed as well in the practical side of criticism. He is admirable in the detection, the analysis and statement of a few of the highest general laws of art production. But he withdraws us too far from what we can see, hear and feel. Doubtless, the idea, the intellectual element, is the Spirit and life of art. Still art is the triumph of the senses and the emotions; and the senses and the emotions must not be cheated of their triumph after all. In this assessment of Coleridge as a theoretical rather than a practical critic, Walter Pater also betrays his obligation to the association of ideas theory of criticism with his emphasis on the senses and the emotions as expressed in art. But the Shift is toward the work of art rather than the mind of the artist. Thus general criticiSms of Coleridge as a literary critic suggest that he did not live up to his potential although his fragments of criticism are most perceptive, that he was a moral critic, and that his quest for absolutes was more productive in art criticism than in other areas, according to Pater's theory. But the most important aSpect of Coleridge's literary criticism for critics of this era was his evaluation of Shakespeare. b. Division Two of Coleridge's Literary Criticism The Shakespeare Criticism Although Coleridge gave lectures on Shakespeare in 1808 and 1818, these attracted little notice from critics until his notes and comments lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings,” Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 56. - uttlll 188. were published in the 1§b13.2§1k and Literagy.Remains of 1835 and 1837. After that, comments on Coleridge's literary criticism indhded substantial notice of his views on Shakespeare, and articles on Shakespeare criticism frequently included references to Coleridge. Coleridge's views on ShakesPeare's drama, language, and characters, particularly Othello, were frequently discussed as well as Coleridge's application of his organic theory of art to Shakespeare's plays. This was previously mentioned with regard to Walter Pater's criticisms. Critics frequently attacked Coleridge's suggested emendations on ShakeSpeare's wording, but his now famous interpretation of Hamlet's character was little noticed while critics were more interested in the method of Coleridge's criticism and the question of his plagiarism from the Germans. Critics disagreed, first of all, on whether or not Coleridge's Shakespeare lectures were worth saving both because the lectures were hastily compiled to fulfill engagements when Coleridge was ill and under the influence of drugs and because many critics believed Coleridge's comments included much plagiarism from Schlegel. In the review of Ighl§_lalk_the Edinburgh Review critic takes the position that not collecting all Coleridge's lectures on Shakespeare was one of the greatest losses recent literature had sustained.1 In spite of this, the critic doubts that Coleridge was as successful as a public lecturer 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 148. a m .0 m ..U ”U. 1U. k um m H... mm M. 189. as he was speaking t0‘a small group because Coleridge's voice and manner were not likely to give advantage to the lecture. And the critic suggests that Coleridge's circular arguments lacked the discipline necessary to impress definite ideas on the minds of an audience assembled to learn as well as to wonder. But even with the torturous arguments, the critic believes the lectures must have contained many striking thoughts and happy expressions.l John Lockhart also expresses regret that Coleridge's Shakespeare lectures were never collected and printed, and Lockhart suggests that H.N. Coleridge, the editor of ggpig_g§;g, is the prOper person to organize and publish Frere's notes on the lectures.2 This comment represents the same kind of advance advertizing that H.N. Coleridge gave the Egbl§_T§lk in his review of S.T. Coleridge's 1834 edition of poetry because the Literagy Remains were published the next year. Lockhart also defends Coleridge against the charge of plagiarism from Schlegel on the ground that Coleridge's 1808 lectures were delivered before Schlegel's and were at least as good as Schlegel's. And in 1840 an Edinburgh Review critic also defends Coleridge against the charge of plagiarism by contending that Wordsworth's and Coleridge's opinions had assumed a philosophical consistency before the German critics were known in England.3 Again in 1849 an Edinburgh Review 1"Specimens of the Table-Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 149. 2J.G. Lockhart, "Specimens of the Table—Talk of S.T. Coleridge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 53, February, 1835, p. 86. 3"Recent ShakeSpearean Literature,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 71, July, 1840, p. 458. 190. critic declares that while the German philosophy of art had been much admired in England, it was little adopted. The reviewer believes the German principles are really detached passages and isolated portions, and Coleridge introduced them in a fragmentary manner although he did contribute greatly towards a new tone in Shakespearean criticism. This critic avoids the plagiarism issue by declaring that it is not easy to say what is of German extraction and what is original with Coleridge, but he believes the Germano—Coleridgean tone was readily accepted by reviewers because it flattered the English national vanity and reconciled the discrepancy between admiration and opinion concerning Shakespeare.l Walter Pater carried the question of attribution a step further in 1866 by declaring that Coleridge borrowed his theory of art from Schelling, although he expressed it in his own terms. The primary weakness, accord— ing to Pater, is that Coleridge kept repeating the theory and did not successfully apply it to ShakeSpeare. Thus the plagiarism question was considered from various points of view by critics of this era without reaching a resolution. Coleridge's method of criticizing Shakespeare particularly interested John Lockhart in 1837 and the Edinburgh Review critic in 1849. Lockhart notes that Coleridge first presumes that an author like Shakespeare is good, then he sets out to understand Why and prove it. The first act, then,is the critic's positive act of will to convince himself that he has a bias toward the work of art. 1"Shelley and Keats," Edinburgh Review, Volume 90, July, 1849, p. 72. L——————- This dei charact: dramati: elder f1 reSulti1 judgmen1 been eq1 itself : Under this the irregularity ; recognized the generations . disIegard the natural genius In 1840 in an essay t} betWeen 1830 E coIIIIIIents as me criticism of S Critic Says Cc works and 0111) . . 'but \~ has more fault m; J'Gv Lc VOIume 59’ Ju] M‘) 3"R ecem July, 1841.0 ) p 191. This deep.sense of Shakespeare's unique greatness is the characteristic of Coleridge's criticism of the mighty dramatist, as it is of Lamb's, who received.it from his elder friend. It is not a love that blinds, but a spirit resulting from the justest philosophy that presumes the judgment of the most wonderful man in the world to have been equal to his genius——nay, more, that his genius revealed itself in his judgment, as in its most exalted form. Under this theory Lockhart says Coleridge could disregard the charges of irregularity and extravagance leveled against Shakespeare because he recognized the pleasure that Shakespeare's dramas had provided for generations. For the same reason, Lockhart feels that Coleridge could disregard the talk of Shakespeare as the formless child of nature, the , 2 natural genius. In 1840 the Edinbur h ngigy includes Coleridge's Ligg£§£y_3§m§ig§ in an essay that considers thirteen books about Shakespeare published between 1830 and 1840. In this survey, the critic describes Coleridge's comments as most representative of the strengths and weaknesses of the criticism of Shakespeare in the nineteenth century. For example, the critic says Coleridge concentrates on the excellencies of Shakespeare's works and only rarely and insecurely considers Shakespeare as having any faults. ...but with a self—distrust which feels, as this writer has more than once expressed it, that what now seems a ‘ 3 fault may upon more mature study appear to be a beauty. lJ.G. Lockhart, ”Coleridge's Literary Remains," Quarterly Review, Volume 59, July, 1837, p. 17. 21bid., p. 18. 3"Recent Shakespearean Literature," Edinburgh Review, Volume 71, July, 1840, p. 451. « used ‘1‘57-(‘ f Whereas the ._l contends thai Shakespeare, is best in pr such flaws as. speculation 2 conflicting c But like the Coleridge's c And ye seduce style Shakes criti one or have a Besides Coleridge's < for emendatir Shakespeare's comments on ‘ earlier crit' only praise criticizes p accuses Cole l"Recs July, 1840, he. leash! 192. Whereas the Edinburgh Review critic who discussed Table Talk in 1835 contends that Coleridge's genius lay in pointing out the weaknesses in Shakespeare, this critic agrees with the Quarterly essayist that Coleridge is best in pointing out good qualities. And the Edinburgh critic notes such flaws as the fragmentary nature of the literary remains, including speculation and some isolated memoranda in which Coleridge expresses conflicting opinions about ShakeSpeare that are not sufficiently explained. But like the other critics before him, this reviewer concludes that Coleridge's comments are Worth reading. And yet, for such readers as will be neither repelled nor seduced by certain of Coleridge's peculiarities both in style and matter, nothing that has ever been said of Shakespeare will Suggest so much valuable thought as the criticisms contained in the Remains, and scattered through one or two of the other volumes which, since his death, 1 have attempted to preserve the substance of his conversations. Besides the method of Coleridge's criticism, reviewers also noted Coleridge's comments on Shakespeare's language. Coleridge's suggestions for emendations generally struck critics as less successful than Shakespeare's original wording. But Lockhart does praise Coleridge's comments on the unity of language in Shakespeare's plays. Unlike many earlier critics who suggest that poets are not good critics because they only praise one another's work, Lockhart contends that only a poet criticizes poetry effectively.2 However, the Edinbur h ngigw critic accuses Coleridge of lacking verbal acuteness and accurate taste in style. l"Recent ShakeSpearean Literature,” Edinbur h ngigy, Volume 71, July, 1840, p. 458—459. 2J.G. Lockhart, "Specimens of the Table—Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 53, February, 1835, p. 91. ,. "He has little . .1» R 4'! “Luisa” gim' ' . .- :31: 1531);? ~r~ 7‘ " imagination 3.1 . 31.3 “11" ‘ I , r} "uti'l 35W 1') f " l" 9', . _'. _, amaeqa’fimfl ‘ ,1 ~- . 2 ’_ u ‘ and words, thi he believes 00 plays are most of more : or his comment: Shakespeare's t essay on we; weak points in and uses a pee qualifications frequently bia him."3 The re1 passion, but hr the spirit of ‘ prevalent in E: In 1835 ‘ criticize Shak The Tempest ra l"Speciv Review, Volume ' 292.19 ’ l 3m, 4mm, 193. "He has little power of noticing and grasping individual objects. His imagination always wandered from details to general principles."1 Because he believes Coleridge lacks the gift of observation of particular things and words, this critic contends that Coleridge's emendations of Shakespeare's plays are most unsuccessful.2 0f more interest to critics than either Coleridge's critical methods or his comments on Shakespeare's language were his interpretations of Shakespeare's characters, particularly Othello. In the Edinburgh Review essay on T§b1g_Tglk the critic notes Coleridge's ability to detect the weak points in a character, but Coleridge concentrates on these weaknesses and uses a peculiar method of judging the importance of different mental qualifications so that the critic believes ”his general estimate is frequently biased, and very rarely such as the public would adopt with him."3 The reviewer agrees with Coleridge that jealousy is not Othello's passion, but he disagrees with Coleridge's theory that Shakespeare learned the spirit of the character of Othello from the Spanish poetry that was prevalent in England during Shakespeare's lifetime. In 1835 John Gibson Lockhart also praises Coleridge's ability to criticize Shakespeare's characters, chosing the comments on Miranda in lb§.I§ER§§£ rather than the more generally admired remarks on Ophelia 1"Specimens of the Table—Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 61, April, 1835, p. 150. 21bid., p. 151. 3 . lbid., p. 145. 41bid., p. 149. . et‘. at: to illustrate Shakespeare's criticism of i poetry in 1815 In 1850 Canvass" has t ‘Coleridge's cc motiveless mal hated Othello And whereas C to conceive o Negro," the Subject from WOman to a neg same way to a This att actions in 93h 0f April, 1860 because Coleri because his [5 1J.G. Lt Volume 59, Jul 21bid., W 3”Chris P- 482. hut-a 194. to illustrate hispoint.l Lockhart also notes Coleridge's criticism of Shakespeare's love scenes and praises the same qualities in Coleridge's criticism of Shakespeare in 1837 that helad praised in Coleridge's own poetry in 1819.2 In 1850 a Blackwood's dramatic sketch entitled ”Christopher under Canvass" has three characters discuss Shakespeare's plays and some of ‘Coleridge's comments on Othello. Whereas Coleridge calls Iago's "a motiveless malignity," one of the characters declares that Iago actually hated Othello for promoting Cassio instead of him, a tangible motive.3 And whereas Coleridge declares that it would be "something monstrous" to conceive of the beautiful Desdemona falling in love with'e veritable Negro," the characters defend this action because the stage removes a Subject from reality. "Because in real life the marriage of a white woman to a negro would be offensive does not mean you would react the . ”4 same way to a stage production. This attack on Coleridge's interpretation of the characters and actions in Othello is followed by another attack in the Qggggggly_ngigw of April, 1860. This critic says Coleridge's criticism is rhapsodic because Coleridge declared his intention to "efface the impression that, because his [ShakeSpeare's] genius was great, he must pgggggggily have lJ.G. Lockhart, "Coleridge's Literary Remains," Qggrgggly ngigw, Volume 59, July, 1837, p. 20. 2 . Ibid., p. 21. 3”Christopher Under Canvass,” Blackwood's, Volume 67, April, 1850, P. 482. 4Ibid., p. 484. . ll , great faults. - i 5.33::me rhapsody as fa] i 2“ New” 'k I ' ‘ much new light Coleridge's fan reviewer notes a base insinuat suspicions orig conduct at Gads negative. In 1864 astonishment t was not jealous evidence. The fom Othello ass that anyone who refined portrai Quite different both of these c indecision or w th0ught , 3 And in l? ShakeSpeare's 1 1"Reccll l 1860, p. 481. 2"Victor 1864, p. 171. 1-... 195. ' While the critic thinks Coleridge does not carry this great faults.’ rhapsody as far as his followers, neither does he think Coleridge throws much new light on ShakeSpeare. AS an example, the critic challenges Coleridge's famous assertion that Othello was not a jealous man. The reviewer notes that there are degrees of jealousy, "but he who imbibes a base insinuation is jealous in his degree, as well as the man whose suSpicions originate with himself.”1 Coleridge's explanation of Falstaff's conduct at Gadshill is praised, but the reviewer's attitude is generally negative. In 1864 a Blackwood's essay, ”Victor Hugo on ShakeSpeare," expresses astonishment that Coleridge and his followers could conclude that Othello was not jealous by temperament but, rather, yielded to overwhelming evidence. The critic uses this interpretation to show what a stately fomIOthello assumes under ShakeSpeare's hands.2 And the critic declares that anyone who reads Hamlet without the preconception of the pensive and refined portraitures of either Coleridge or Goethe will find something quite different from what they describe. The essayist concludes that both of these critics rest far too much of their interpretation on the indecision or want of will that so often accompanies the habit of meditative thought.3 And in 1866 Walter Pater contends that Coleridge exaggerates Shakespeare's unity into something like the unity of a natural organism, 1"Recollections of Leslie," Qg§£§§31y_3gyigy, Volume 107, April, 1860, p. 481. 2"Victor Hugo on Shakespeare,” Blackwood'g, Volume 96, August, 1864, p. 171. 31b1d., p. 172. ,. ‘~ . .".f.' :fllrf’u.‘ 143318103“ sci as {how 5:9 l“; £331!“ and Coleridge practical cri‘ After tl criticism in 1 1866 often to: as much intere critics paid 1 for a number a life and work. he. Whereas lifetime frequ leave things 11 poetry to meta S-T. Coleridge and Coleridge' problem after Perspective of continued to a been personal lWalter 85, January, ] 196. and Coleridge repeats his critical theory rather than applying it in his practical criticism of Shakespeare.1 After the essentially positive comments on Coleridge's Shakespeare criticism in the reviews of gab;E.2§lk, later critics between 1835 and 1866 often conclude that Coleridge's comments on Shakespeare are not of as much interest as had been previously supposed. After this devaluation, critics paid little attention to Coleridge's criticism of ShakeSpeare for a number of years and turned their attention to other aspects of his life and work. Part Three The Critical Reception of Recollections gf_gpleridge and Biographical Accounts between 1835 and 1870 Whereas the criticism of Coleridge's poetry written during his lifetime frequently bemoaned Coleridge's indolence, his tendency to leave things unfinished, and the change in his personal interests from poetry to metaphysics; critics who assessed the personal recollections of S.T. Coleridge written by Thomas Allsop, Joseph Cottle, James Gillman, and Coleridge's nephew H.N. Coleridge and daughter Sara had the further problem after Coleridge's death of explaining his life and work in the perspective of increasing public revelations of his drug addiction. Critics continued to attempt a reconciliation between what they believed to have been personal failures in Coleridge's life and the creativity of his art. lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings,” Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 55. i L}? ?:X.?"}‘1 ”itrk'IUIfi' u . .3, I ’3 Lani)“ I I l I I l I I Furthermore , Wordsworth, CI lived and war] among the poet kinship increz criticism in t the recollecti accounts of th biographical r years; but mos composed afte follcmed the Wordsworth in Beginnin Recollections ‘ acquaintances based on the 1: accounts. The but does not c second notice Coleridge's de QUalities are ViSualize book 197. Furthermore, they wanted to believe that such creative spirits as Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Southey were compatible, superior beings who lived and worked in friendly proximity; but revelations of squabbles among the poets made this justification of such lofty spirits in fidendly kinship increasingly difficult.. The two major focuses of Coleridge criticism in the reviews of this era are: first, the evaluations of the recollections of Coleridge and of his biographers; and, second, the accounts of the relationships among the poets. The first of these, the biographical recollections, followed Coleridge's death within twenty years; but most of the accounts of relationships among the poets were composed after 1850 and were based on the biographical accounts that followed the deaths of Coleridge and Lamb in 1834, Southey in 1843, and Wordsworth in 1850. Beginning with Thomas AllSOp's Letters, Conversations and Recollections gf_§;TL Coleridge, published in 1835, a series of books by acquaintances of S.T. Coleridge provoked criticism of Coleridge's character based on the revelations and also criticism of the authors of these accounts. The first notice of Allsop's book in the Athenaeum contains but does not comment on some of Coleridge's criticism. However, the second notice repeats the charge that Coleridge was indolent and includes Coleridge's description of how he began to use opium. Coleridge's visionary qualities are also noted sarcastically in terms of his tendency to visualize books that Were never written. And Allsop is criticized because ~ mm— vent .mm an Anorak-.3113 . an.» 5915!. ”‘JTIR , he adores too ordered fasci‘ and was the b. literary crit: Followir FEM Recollet and eight volt 153E921 publis Coleridge and Coleridge and that Cottle d' family in mak' petty quarrel Besides assessed Coler tmderlying cri to serve as gu of genius who spirit of app: 011 Cott] Statement that Cottle could k l"Lettei SeCond Notice 198. he adores too freely to Speak about Coleridge, "the object of his dis- ordered fascination."l This book was republished thkty years later and was the basis for Walter Pater's assessment of Coleridge as a poet, literary critic, theologian, and philosopher. Following Allsop's recollections, Joseph Cottle's two volume figgly Recollections, chiefly Relating £g_£h§_;ggg Samuel Taylor Coleridge and eight volume Reminiscences 9f_Samuel Taylor Coleridge EEQ Robert Southey published in 1837 and 1847 respectively after the death of Coleridge and then of Southey produced the most vehement criticism of Coleridge and of Cottle during this period. Critics generally agreed that Cottle disPlayed poor taste and a lack of consideration for Coleridge‘s family in making his revelations about Coleridge's drug addiction and the petty quarrels among Wordsworth, Southey, and Coleridge. Besides evaluating Cottle's role as a biographer, critics also assessed Coleridge's character on the basis of the recollections and the underlying critical assumption that poets should be of superior morality to serve as guides to their readers and that the poets were kindred spirits of genius who appreciated one another and lived together in a mutual spirit of appreciation. On Cottle's role, the Athenaeum reviewer takes issue with Cottle‘s Statement that he was in a position to know Coleridge by contending that Cottle could have lived with Coleridge until Doomsday and not know him. l"Letters, Conversations, and Recollections of S.T. Coleridge. Second Notice,” Athenaeum, No. 425, December 19, 1835, p. 941. .1003 .mlnnr 13%} M 5.52:? “V I. "- , ‘gf'j‘yi‘lgjk; I This reviewei estimate of ( and intellect made 'the old records Coler giant out of ‘ achieves £819 and undervalu‘ great. is overs precedence to Even mor response in a review of gig book, probably Cottle's age a his feelings o Cottle's metho recollections. The refu of a she life of garbage, on a she filth--i this nev l"Early Coleridge, duI 498, May 13, I 2m. c 59, July, 183 3 Ibid., a...“ 199. This reviewer believes the public wants a clear and philosophical estimate of Coleridge's character——a bold, vigorous sketch of the moral and intellectual man, "drawn with such freedom and spirit as should have made 'the old man eloquent' to live and breathe again." Instead, Cottle records Coleridge's infirmities, and the reader must draw the intellectual giant out of the "fragmentary rubbish."1 The critic thinks Cottle achieves falsehood rather than truth because of his misapprehensions and undervaluings in which the subordinate becomes the predominant, the great is overshadowed by the little, and the permanent gives place and precedence to the temporary and accidental. Even more antagonistic toward Cottle is the uarterl reviewer's reSponse in a review of Couie's book attached to John Gibson Lockhart's review of Literagy Remains in 1837. The part of the essay on Cottle's book, probably written by H.N. Coleridge, announces that only pity for Cottle's age and self—exposure enables the reviewer to express calmly his feelings on reading Cottle's book.2 H.N. Coleridge first disputes Cottle's method of biography and then attacks the sources of his recollections. The refuse of advertisements and handbills, the sweepings of a shop, the shreds of a ledger, the rank residuum of a life of gossip,-—this forty years' deposit of Bristol garbage, smeared in the very idiocy of annecdote—mongering on a shapeless fragment, and a false name scratched in the filth——is the short result, but imperfect description, of this new exemplar of biography 'as it ought to be.' l"Early Recollections Chiefly Relating to the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge, during his long residence in Bristol," Athenaeum, No. 498, May 13, 1837, p. 343. 2H.N. Coleridge, "Cottle's Recollections," Quarterly Review, Volume 59, July, 1837, p. 35. 31bid., p. 26. 1‘ ‘X 53‘1“”. t- ‘ :vI '_,:—~.'n1v'u um ‘_. : 53521-389 a; km ‘8 Although some thisreviewer scrupulous re rakes up rece sake!"l Besides objects to Co of Coleridge' reviewer does Coleridge's a because Cottl journalism. that Coleridg 0n the contrar entitle him to gossip and exp children.2 Ten yea: much castigatj renewed and e) the additional to the offence lH.N. o 59, July, 183‘ 21bid., 3"Remin At £13m, N0 200. Although some critics praised Cottle for supporting the budding poets, this reviewer does not accord Cottle this credit because of his overly scrupulous record of every guinea paid to S.T. Coleridge in which Cottle rakes up receipts, "to schedule every guinea for the wretched guinea's sake!"l Besides Cottle's preoccupation with finances, the uarterl reviewer objects to Cottle's lack of taste in expressing the "loathsome minutie" of Coleridge's drug addiction that panders to vile curiosity. The reviewer does not accept Cottle's justification that his description of Coleridge's addiction warns young people about the terrors of drugs because Cottle goes into such lurid details that the work is sensational journalism. Nor does the reviewer accept Cottle's second justification that Coleridge's intellectual eminence makes his memory public property. On the contrary, the critic declares that Coleridge's genius should entitle him to reSpect from the world rather than opening him to petty gossip and exposing all his weaknesses to the subsequent shame of his children.2 Ten years later the Athenaeum reviewer expresses surprise that so much castigation of the first edition did not deter Cottle from this renewed and exaggerated evidence of his bad taste. The reviewer believes the additional comments on Robert Southey in this later edition only add to the offence.3 lH.N. Coleridge, "Cottle's Recollections,” Quarterly Review, Volume 59, July, 1837, p. 28. 21bid., p. 31. 3"Reminiscences of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey," Athenaeum, No. 1024, June 20, 1847, p. 620. :73 r: 2.11:; anon .“ i . ‘1. * 11 team.” 1 ,n cunhw ‘ : Broil? t' 503?. Whereas for Coleridge drug addiction produced the e review of Jame was already kn to Gillman's c Coleridge took addiction whic the drugs were pleasure. DeQ though the dru because of the their wills. DeQuincey for dullness an Coleridge conve Coleridge. The Coleridge and h before speculat effort. And De be enhanced as Coleridge extensive upon neit 201. Whereas the Athenaeum and Quarterly reviewers express sympathy for Coleridge at Cottle's improper recollections of S.T. Coleridge's drug addiction, Blackwood's continues the anti—Coleridge criticism that produced the essay on Coleridge's plagiarism in 1840 with DeQuincey's review of James Gillman‘s Lifg_2f_§;g;_Coleridge, Volume I. DeQuincey was already known for his Confessions gfpgp 92122 Egggp, but he objects to Gillman's contention that he took opium to achieve sensations whereas Coleridge took it to prevent pain. The only justification for drug addiction which critics could accept with a moral reconciliation was that the drugs were necessary to prevent pain rather than merely to gain pleasure. DeQuincey notes that the pleasures of opium are obvious even though the drug is taken for pain, but some people become addicted because of the function of their particular nervous systems rather than their wills. DeQuincey retaliates against James Gillman by attacking his book for dullness and by suggesting that no second volume was completed because Coleridge converted Gillman to opium addiction instead of Gillman curing Coleridge. Then DeQuincey turns to the t0pic that interests him most, Coleridge and his drug addiction. DeQuincey praises Coleridge's intellect before speculating on the probable effects of opium on Coleridge's literary effort. And DeQuincey suggests that Coleridge's intellectual fame will be enhanced as his literary contributions are more adequately assessed. Coleridge as a poet-—Coleridge as a philosopher! How extensive are those questions, if those were all! and upon neither question have we yet any investigation——such I~ aria mmflrtnfl’ .4 _‘.‘s. 3313;135:1004“ _n_.;=:.-1i>ba 3:336 . .grttojr At the time D . . any Caleridge was in Coleridge' was much refe drug addict one of the fe valued these of Coleridge' DeQuinc of self-revel. revelation to all their faul drug addictiox Suggest that 1 occasion woulr attitude towa contends, and intellectual _____ __—.—__ — 202. as, by compass of views, by research, or even by earnestness of sympathy with the subject, can, or ought to satisfy, a philosophic demand. Blind is that man who can persuade himself that the interest in Coleridge taken as a total object, is becoming an obsolete interest. At the time DeQuincey was writing, a period of eclipse of interest in Coleridge was beginning; but his remarks herald the renewal of interest in Coleridge's life after 1870 when DeQuincey's account of drug addiction was much referred to by Coleridge's biographers because DeQuincey as a drug addict as well as an acquaintance of Coleridge was, like Cottle, one of the few people to frankly assess this issue. And later critics valued these recollections when the question of offending immediate members of Coleridge's family no longer existed. DeQuincey notes that opium increases the faculty of mental vision, of self-revelation, that is the addict's reason for reporting his revelation to the world.2 He also notes that opium eaters often blame all their faults on taking opium even if they were not the result of drug addiction. And Coleridge, according to DeQuincey, would first suggest that his addiction could be easily thrown off and then on another occasion would refer to it as the scourge of his life. This erratic attitude toward the addiction is characteristic of Coleridge, DeQuincey contends, andthe tendency to have periods of frequent but erratic intellectual effort and animation are characteristic of drug addicts in 1Thomas DeQuincey, "Coleridge and Opium—Eating,” Blackwood's, Volume 57, January, 1845, p. 117. 21bid., p. 132. general. DeQ tendency to 1 torment of op in metaphysic opium. DeQuincI works unfinis? cured, he sti.‘ and illness. and dislikes : mental attituI Colerid; and exa: that, 12‘ reality worked I And DeQuincey the path to t] figurative ill DeQuincey's re was published would be consj importance to s es lake a PTOblem by a 1 1Thomas Volume 57, Jar 203. general. DeQuincey thus attributes to drug addiction Coleridge's tendency to leave works incomplete. And DeQuincey also concedes that the torment of opium killed Coleridge as a poet and roused his interest in metaphysics because poetry requies a happiness that does not come from opium. DeQuincey notes, however, that Coleridge tended to leave literary works unfinished before he began eating opium; and even if he had been cured, he still would have found his literary efforts impaired by age and illness. DeQuincey even goes so far as to attribute Coleridge's likes and dislikes among people to the effects of his opium addiction on his mental attitude. Coleridge, we are well convinced, owed all these wandering and exaggerated estimates of men—~these diseased impulses, that, like the mirage, showed lakes and fountains where in reality there were only arid deserts, to the derangements worked by opium.l And DeQuincey's story of Coleridge walking and weaving from one side of the path to the other provided subsequent critics with their chief figurative illustration of the vascillating quality of Coleridge's mind. DeQuincey's review of Gillman's book, like the recollections themselves, was published within the time period after Coleridge's death when it would be considered a tactless revelation, but the essay was of major importance to later critics as it was expanded in DeQuincey's Recollections g: the Lake Poets and provided a first hand account of the drug addiction problem by a fellow drug addict. lThomas DeQuincey, "Coleridge and Opium—Eating,” Blackwood's, Volume 57, January, 1845, p. 126—127. . lane-i! \ ‘e in”. £93 £93 ,7! Whereas political and of Coleridge' about Colerid mark this jou deceased poet political joul views. The rt a discerning 1 of Coleridge's kindest hearts lived."l And Coleridge and hm two journa the horrors oi revelation of prevails over emphasized the the Edinburgh Coleridge's ur Such sources c Pantisocracy, l"Coleri P-368 21bid., 204. Whereas the EdinburghReview essays on 35121:; Elk displayed the political and personal biases that characterized that journal's reviews of Coleridge's prose during his lifetime, the review of a series of books about Coleridge and the new edition of the Biographia Literaria in 1848 mark this jOurnal's charge to the view that Coleridge was a distinguished, deceased poet who is entitled to tactful consideration even from a rival political journal which is no longer affected by his obsolete political views. The reviewer sympathizes with Colaidges relatives and notes that a discerning friend might well have been entrusted to tell the true story of Coleridge's life, but the critic feels that Cottle "has one of the kindest hearts joined to one of the worst judgments of any man that ever lived."1 And the Edinbur h reviewer repeats the uarterl opinion that _______Ji_ Coleridge and Southey should be remembered for their good qualities. The two journals agree that Cottle's use of Coleridge as an example of the horrors of a drug addict is not sufficient justification for the revelation of intimate details of his addiction. The policy of discretion prevails over moral instruction in both magazines. Whereas DeQuincey emphasized the effect of drug addiction on Coleridge's literary production, the Edinburgh reviewer and subsequent critics note other causes of Coleridge's unhappiness and lack of success. The Edinburgh critic includes such sources of disappointment as Coleridge's shattered dreams of Pantisocracy, his inadequate income, and his unhappy married life. In l"Coleridge and Southey,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 87, April, 1848, p. 368. 21bid., p. 368. 1850 a Quarte potential as ...a di to whic hard tc the day his gii Besides of Leslie's E constitutions keeping appoi mind and elev‘ the reviewer In 1866 to create poe Pater surmise during his st wronged, driv in Coleridge' fantastic des spiritual nob dream. Pater Of this Panti Pater, when C 1.1.6. 1 83. December, 2"Rocol 1360, p. 479. 3Walter Jawry. 1866 205. 1850 a Quarterly critic emphasizes that Coleridge did not live up to his potential as a poet or orator because of indolence and addiction. ...a disease implanted also in his fabric, and an indulgence to which, as thence in great part resulting, it may seem hard to apply the name of vice, but which operated, until the day was far spent in tafnishing the rightful glory of his gifts and acquisitions. Besides these reasons for Coleridge's lack of success, the reviewer of Leslie's Recollections in 1860 adds that Coleridge had certain constitutional infirmities that included inferior qualities like not keeping appointments. Although Leslie contends that Coleridge's superior mind and elevated thoughts prevented him from thinking of such things, . . 2 the rev1ewer blames Coleridge's personal weaknesses. In 1866 Walter Pater also considers why Coleridge lost his ability to create poetry and did not evolve a coherent philosophical system. Pater surmises that Coleridge turned from worldly things to inward thought durin his sta at Christ's HOSpital where he was miserably ”repressed 8 Y , wronged, driven inward."3 Pater hints at an unaccountable dark element in Coleridge's character that was displayed in fits of violent, sometimes fantastic despondency. Besides this, however, Pater suggests an inherent spiritual nobility in Coleridge that is reflected in the Pantisocratic dream. Pater also suggests that Coleridge was disillusioned by the failure of this Pantisocracy scheme and of the French Revolution. According to Pater, when Coleridge's dream of liberty for all men died with the failure lJ.G. Lockhart, ”Life of Robert Southey,” Quarterly Review, Volume 88, December, 1850, p. 205. 2"Recollections of Leslie,” Quarterly Review, Volume 107, April, 1860, p. 479. 3Walter Pater, “Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 51. of the Freud Pater theori: produce theii of mind are 5. world of sigh his potential result of Col style and his With a1 assuming than of various pe by refuting t critic conten or visions f0 Coleridge's s‘ to see faults work he had e: this critic n theologian, a John Stuart M POint of View Coleridge's i- lWalter 85, January, Zena 3"Char1 Volume 122, J 206. of the French Revolution, his youthfulness and literary joy also died. Pater theorizes that emotions such as optimism, excitement, and love produce their own reflection in thoughts and images. Thus, joyful states of mind are self—expressive and harmonize with sensuous images from the world of sight.1 Coleridge's loss of joy caused him to fail to develop his potential as a poet although Pater acknowledged some influence as a result of Coleridge's drug addiction on his increasingly drab writing style and his distempered mind. With all of these assessments of causes of Coleridge's failure, assuming that Coleridge was a failure in life judging by the recollections of various people, a Quarterly reviewer in 1867 strikes a positive note by refuting the charge that Coleridge wasted his poetic talent. This critic contends that Coleridge was a genius who fulfilled the schemes or visions for which he was best suited. According to this reviewer, Coleridge's self-detraction reSulted from the natural tendency of a genius to see faults in the real work produced in comparisons with the ideal work he had envisioned. Besides praising Coleridge's creative genius, this critic notes his inspiration for others as a poet, philosopher, theologian, and conversationalist. And this Quarterly critic repeats John Stuart Mill's 1840 assertion that Coleridge opposes Jeremy Bentham's point of view in substance and spirit. This critic contends that Coleridge's influence was so great that even if his own works were not lWalter Pater, "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85, January, 1866, p. 52. 2Ibid., p. 53. 3”Charles Lamb and Some of His Companions,” Quarterly Review, Volume 122, January, 1867, p. 13. . r 4w“! N3“ ,3 “ guild} 1‘3“ 2m 2:, noticed . at greatness . We mig might true w This p literature a work after 1 between 1845 was a failur reasons for Expandi also reflecte Celebrated _lj‘; —-——....._..___ earns Lani January, 1867 Thompson's th their literar friendship.2 on William Ha l"Charl 122, January , 2n 0n Tr 1862, p_ 88_g 3"Char1 Mme 122. ; 207. noticed at all, the writings of his followers would testify to his greatness . We might almost suppress reference to his own writings, we might point to the writings of others; to recognize.the true worth of that life in its vivifying power over other lives, we must, indeed, look around, but we must also look upward, searching for its traces wherever some fertile eminence, dominating the level table land of thought, expands to nearer sunbeam the purpose of a richer Vintage or the gold of an ampler harvest. This positive evaluation of Coleridge's contribution to English literature and thought heralds the increasing interest in his life and work after 1870. It also follows the period of eclipsed interest between 1845 and 1865 in which critics generally concluded that Coleridge was a failure on the basis of acc0unts of his life and evaluated the reasons for this failure more than what he had produced. Expanding interest in the interrelationships among the poets is also reflected in the later part of this period in reviews of books like Celebrated Friendships in the Westminster Review of January, 1862, and January, 1867. In the first of these reviews, the critic repeats author Thompson's theories that Coleridge and Southey had little in common but their literary aspirations whereas Coleridge and Lamb had a more gentle friendship.2 And the 1867 Quarterly review notes Coleridge's influence on William Hazlitt, Leigh Hunt, and Charles Lamb.3 l"Charles Lamb and Some of His Companions,” Quarterly Review, Volume 122, January, 1867, p. 13. 2"On Translating Homer," Westminster Review, Volume 97, January, 1862, p. 88—90. 3”Charles Lamb and Some of His Companions," Quarterly Review, Volume 122, January, 1867, p. 12. I t 1 Where Cattle, and accounts, d Coleridge's Coleridge's explain on t dominated af and 1837 and of critical ' to 1870. Du Allsop's boo work that is manages a po works unfinis some positive among the poe Political and antagonism on a writer and for the reeds Coleridge's u able from the 208. Whereas the reviews of recollections of S.T. Coleridge by Allsop, Cottle, and Gillman all included attacks on the authors for biased accounts, dull reporting, or bad taste in the revelation of details of Coleridge's drug addiction, the major revision in attitude was toward Coleridge's life, which critics described as a failure and sought to explain on that basis. This negative attitude toward his life pre— dominated after the reviews of EEE;E.EE£§.and Literary Remains in 1835 and 1837 and probably account, at least to some extent, for the eclipse of critical interest in Coleridge's works during the period from 1850 to 1870. During that period Walter Pater's review of a reissue of Allsop's book in 1866 contributes an evaluation of aspects of Coleridge's work that is significant,and the following year the uarterl reviewer manages a positive justification of Coleridge's tendency to leave literary works unfinished. And the books about friendships among the poets include some positive comments in spite of the earlier recollections of squabbles among the poets. But during this period reviewers cease to express their political and personal antagonism toward Coleridge and concentrate their antagonism on his biographers. However, with the continuing theory that a writer and his works should provide moral direction and cultural elevation for the readers, probably such revelations made it impossible to praise Coleridge's moral and religious views, which Pater contends were unaccept— able from the beginning and which were otherwise ignored after 1850. Betwl displayed ' interest 11 First of a Coleridge': matters as Previous e( authoritat: Coleridge'; of this bo< Period Was Were Preset km“ Publj source Stm CrEat10n 01 Called the Critj remption ( E'H' COlEri notebOoks t commthS or Chapter IV Introduction Between 1870 and 1902 S.T. Coleridge's critical reception displayed various distinctive qualities that developed out of critical interest in his poetry, prose, and biography in the preceding periods. First of all, besides presenting their own interpretations of Coleridge's poetry, critics were interested in such editorial matters as what poems should be included in new editions and which previous editions of Coleridge's poetry should be considered authoritative. This issue concerned critics in new editions of Coleridge's poems and of the Lyrical Ballads when centennial editions of this book were published. Another distinctive concern in this period was the textual study of individual poems as various versions were presented that had existed formerly in manuscript form in little known publications. And this period also marks the beginning of source studies and critical attempts to evaluate theories about the creation of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," what J. Dykes Campbell called the "localizing craze." Critical interest in S.T. Coleridge's life history dominated the reception of new editions of his prose and of his life. Because E.H. Coleridge organized his editions of S.T. Coleridge's letters and notebooks to diSplay various facets of his life rather than his comments on other matters such as literary criticism, religion, philosophy element of Coleridge': prose work: editorial 1 generated 1 in what Co; questions, Prose duriz Alth( S-T. Coleri biographies C01eridge n W the Prose, and that Wire 1 % Critics 815 0f the Gem Coleridge.E A fir Period Was Stature So .-r-CE-iéiit-r~~ « g, 210. philosophy, or politics, critics, in turn, evaluated the biographical element of the letters and expressed their opinions about E.H. Coleridge's editorial shaping of these works. New editions of Coleridge's prose works, like those of his poetry, interested critics in various editorial matters. And new discoveries of Coleridge's marginalia generated more interest in the physical condition of the notes than in what Coleridge wrote. Therefore, editorial policies, textual questions, and Coleridge's biography dominated the reception of his prose during this period. Although biographical matters are often reflected in reviews of S.T. Coleridge's prose works, another category is the reception of biographies of Coleridge. In the 18805 a series of books ab0ut Coleridge motivated familiar essays in the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews that attempted to evaluate all aspects of Coleridge's poetry, prose, and biography. These include some revelations about Coleridge that were not included in the survey of his life that was printed in Blackwood's in 1871. Besides describing Coleridge's life and work, critics also evaluated the biographers' efforts, particularly those of the German scholar Alois Brandl, whose controversial study of Coleridge's life was translated into English by Lady Eastlake. A final matter of critical interest that was distinctive in this period was the recognition of Coleridge as an English poet of sufficient stature so that a movement was instituted to have the cottage at Nether _— Stowey pre presented: century. After between 133 Editions of the AEEEEEE WhiCh new e whiCh of Co reViewers w COlefidge's Besid critics GVa Published p m°tivated r‘ as well. I Plays, and coneerned w; a partiCula WOrk. 211. Stowey preserved as a national monument. Reports of this effort were presented in the Athenaeum at various times before the end of the century. Part One The Critical Reception 2f Coleridge's Poetry between 1870‘and 1902 Introduction After the period of eclipsed interest in S.T. Coleridge's poetry between 1835 and 1870, new editions of Coleridge's poems and centennial editions of the Lyrical Ballads received frequent, brief notices in the Athenaeum. Critics were particularly interested in the texts from which new editions were drawn and the editorial method of determining which of Coleridge‘s poems were included in the edition. Thus, the reviewers were more interested in editorial matters than in evaluating Coleridge's poetry in the new editions. Besides new editions of Coleridge's poetry and the Lyrical Ballads, critics evaluated new discoveries of previously unpublished or obscurely published poems. Also, the biographical studies of Coleridge's life motivated review essays that included evaluations of Coleridge's poetry as well. In these essays the odes, poems of the supernatural, the plays, and the shorter poems are grouped together. Often critics were concerned with attempting to discover Coleridge's last or best text of a particular poem rather than attempting to evaluate the quality of his work. In t initiated of "The Ri Campbell c Part Of the var between 18 editions 0 In Section the Same d 0f Colerid ‘the plays’ of the rec is the C10 questiOnS, With of Colerid Pronked 8 they Chese The Coleridge. 212. In this period too source.studies of Coleridge's work are initiated such as the review of Ivor Richards' study of the sources of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," and the Athenaeum critic J. Dykes Campbell contributes further information on sources of the poem. Part One is divided into two major sectionsibr the consideration of the various divisions of critical interest in Coleridge's poetry between 1870 and 1902. In Section A the textual studies and new editions of Coleridge's poetry and of Lyrical Ballads are considered. In Section B critical interpretations of the poems are discussed in the same divisions of the poems that was used to evaluate the reception of Coleridge's poetry during his lifetime: the shorter poems and odes, I the plays, and the poems of the supernatural. The distinctive aspect of the reception of Coleridge's poetry during this later period, then, is the close textual study given variant versions of poems, editorial questions, and the first of many subsequent source studies. Section A 1. New Editions of Coleridge's Poetry With increasing critical intrest in obtaining an accurate text of Coleridge's writings, the new editions of Coleridge's poetry provoked some criticism of how editors handled the material and What they chose to include. The reviewer of the Pickering edition in 1877 notes that although Coleridge's best poetry is in small proportion to "the youthful .._._——\ _— crudity ar the inferi depend on reviewer a little lef some varia they be co achieve a 1 Campbell 0 Overlooked later B, B1 Pickering ( reaching t1 Pickering_‘ In 1: by the Q POetry of t criticiSm i it Odd that coleridge's ln Athenae \llm, 2M. “haw, 3 J- D 'The Poetic , 4H. B NO‘ 2782, F 213. crudity and senile verbiage," it is better for an editor to reproduce the inferior work than to have the selection of works to.be published depend on editorial caprice. Pickering publishes everything, but the reviewer also thinks it lucky for Coleridge's fame that there is. little left to publish.1 Three months later, D.F. MacCarthy submits some variations of poemstn the Athenaeum with the suggestion that they be collated for future printings of the Pickering edition to achieve a more exact copy of Coleridge's best poems.2 Then J. Dykes Campbell contributes other variations of poems that MacCarthy had overlooked in a journal called Thg_Poetical Register.3 Four years later H. Buxton Forman recounts differences between a reprint of the Pickering edition and the Macmillan edition of Coleridge's poems, reaching the conclusion that most of the Macmillan edition comes from Pickering.4 In 1885 Thomas Ashe's edition of Coleridge's poems is criticized by the Athenaeum reviewer for not excluding much of the insignificant poetry of the 1796, 1797, 1803, and 1834 editions, the Opposite criticiSm from that of the Pickering edition. The critic also thinks it odd that Ashe prints poems Coleridge objected to side by side with Coleridge's objections to them. But the critic primarily criticizes l"The Poetical and Dramatic Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 2583, April 28, 1877, p. 538. 2D.F. MacCarthy, "Unnoted Variations in the Text of Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 2596, July 28, 1877, pp. 112—113. 3J. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge, Lamb, Leigh Hunt, and Others in 'The Poetical Register,'" Athenaeum, No. 2994, March 14, 1885, p. 344. 4H. Buxton Forman, "Coleridge's Editors and Critics," Athenaeum, No. 2782, February 19, 1881, p. 284. the organi: In 12 editions we Thomas Ashe editor made bases his c other. He text, but c believed th 0f poems on USEd only t a cheaper 1 Campbell re a light~hea Cobden-sand aLIlIlOllthing When the % 1"Our 2 in “19%,: 3 M Thom. NO' 3151. u Wyl %.I 214. the organization of Ashe's work and his too extensive notes.1 In 1888 J. Dykes Campbell notes that Pickering's 1877 and 1880 editions were based on the 1829 edition of Coleridge's poems whereas Thomas Ashe's 1885 edition was based on the 1828 edition, and that neither editor made use of the volume from which he did not print.2 Campbell bases his opinion on changes Coleridge made from one edition to the other. He thinks the 1829 edition was Coleridge's final selection of text, but confusion arose because H.N. and Sara Coleridge mistakenly believed the 1828 edition was final, and they completed the 1834 edition of poems on the basis of it.3 Thomas Ashe writes to confirm that he used only the 1828 edition because he thought the 1829 edition was only a cheaper issue of the same book.4 Ashe requests an errata slip which Campbell replies that he does not have, and Campbell accuses Ashe of a light-hearted attitude toward bibliographical matters.5 Then T.J. Cobden-Sanderson adds a final comment to the errata controversy by announcing that his bound copy of the 1828 edition has not list of errata.6 When Campbell's edition of Coleridge's life and works was published, the Westminster revtwer declares that Dykes Campbell's biography of 1"Our Library Table," Athenaeum, No. 3003, May 16, 1885, p. 629. 2J. Dykes Campbell, "The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, No. 3150, March 10, 1888, p. 307. 3Ibid., p. 308. 4Thomas Ashe, ”The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, No. 3151, March 17, 1888, pp. 339—340. 5J. Dykes Campbell, "The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, No. 3153, March 31, 1888, p. 405. 6T.J. Cobden—Sanderson, "The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, No. 3154, April 7, 1888, p. 437. 1——-\ _— Coleridge w reviewer be complete to The W graphical s 0r philos0p by showing wonderful t Takin Suggests th Coleridge's exPlored mo eXtraordina of art. He tone" which uIlfiflished left works WhiCh he as colel‘idge's on the basi a poem from reSult that lHPOE 215. Coleridge will supersede all former biographies.l And the.Athenaeum reviewer believes Campbell's edition of Coleridge's poems is the most complete to date. The Westminster reviewer notes, however, that Campbell's bio— graphical sketch of Coleridge does not discuss his position as a poet or philosopher.because Campbell is intent on serving Coleridge's memory by showing how "after all, given his temperament, his fall was less wonderful than his recovery." Taking another approach to the same subject, the Athenaeum critic suggests that to understand Coleridge's development as a poet, Coleridge's undergraduate days and William Freud's influence should be explored more fully.2 This Athenaeum reviewer also notes Coleridge's extraordinary power to fuse poetic sequences into a finished work of art. He contends also that he is weary of the "droll patronizing tone" which critics frequently adopt toward Coleridge because of his unfinished works and disorganized life. The critic believes Coleridge left works unfinished when they did not complete the ideal fusion for Which he asPired or because of the paralysis caused by drug addiction. Coleridge's accounts of the dates his works were composed are defended on the basis that Coleridge was an insatiable elaborator who might date a poem from his school years and then add revisions later, with the result that critics dated it from the later period.3 Because the 1"Poetry," Westminster Review, Volume 139, January, 1893, p. 703. 2"The Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3425, June 17, 1893, p. 757. 31bid., p. 758. _— elaboratio critic fee. poem from : Coleridge j at an earl} grandfathei Coleridge 5 Wordsworth written, E. racollectic read one of Ancient Mar "Wanderings the Ancient Richa DYkes Campb a Successfu literary or POetry rath comments on 1"The 3425, Jme 2E.H. 27. 1894, p 3"}11181 Camett, n A 216. elaborations fit so well with the original idea of the poem, this critic feels that Coleridge "naturally and inevitably" would date the poem from its original composition although he also notes that Coleridge liked to flatter his ego by thinking he reflected genius at an early age.1 And six months later E.H. Coleridge objects to his grandfather's dating of the "Wanderings of Cain." Whereas S.T. Coleridge said this prose fragment was begun in cooperation with' Werdsworth in 1798 before "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" was written, E.H. Coleridge concludes that his grandfather had a faulty recollection thirty years later because he does not think Coleridge read one of the books used as a source until after "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" was begun. Therefore, E.H. Coleridge suggests that "Wanderings of Cain" was begun after rather than before "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” in 1798.2 Richard Garnett's edition of Coleridge's poetry is compared with Dykes Campbell's edition, and the reviewer concludes that Garnett is a successful critic of the poems whereas Dykes Campbell was not a literary critic.3 The reviewer notes that Garnett emphasizes Coleridge's poetry rather than his philosoPhical and critical works, and then he comments on Garnett's various entries, particularly the albatross passage 1"The Poetical WOrks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3425, June 17, 1893, p. 759. 2E.H. Coleridge, "Note on Coleridge,” Athenaeum, No. 3457, January 27, 1894, p. 114. 3"Muses Library——The Poetry of S.T. Coleridge. Edited by Richard Garnett," Athenaeum, No. 3656, November 20, 1897, p. 701. .— from Shelv Garnett's in 1797, t with exten Then the r to "the 10 This indicates also refle With evalu lifetime (1 1835 and l critics ar ing the qu Near 331% in re‘EValuat‘ Longman v s textual qu‘ Inl of the LE 1" ‘ Garnett," . Ib\i 217. from Shelvocke which, the reviewer asserts, was first published in Garnett's edition.l Whereas Garnett dates the first part of "Christabel" in 1797, the reviewer suggests that the second part was composed in 1799 with extensive notes borrowed from Dorothy Wordsworth's 1798 journal. Then the reviewer recommends Garnett's edition of Coleridge's poems to "the lover of dainty books." This series of criticisms of new editions of Coleridge's poetry indicates the continued public demand for Coleridge's work, but they also reflect a significant shift in critical interest in comparison with evaluations of earlier editions of Coleridge's works. During his lifetime critics evaluated Coleridge's poetry in itself, then between 1835 and 1870 new editions were ignored by critics, and after 1870 critics are more interested in what the editors include than in evaluat- ing the quality of Coleridge's poetry. 2. New Editions of Lyrical Ballads Near the centennial of the original publication of Lyrical Ballads in 1798, several new editions of this book prompted critics to re-evaluate the original manuscripts that had been retained by the Longman's publishing firm as well as the new editions and various textual questions. In 1890 the Athenaeum reviewer notes that Edward Dowden's edition of the Lyrical Ballads was reprinted from the first edition of 1798. l"Muses Library-~The Poetry of S.T. Coleridge. Edited by Richard Garnett," Athenaeum, No. 3656, November 20, 1897, p. 702. 2Ibid., p. 702. The review it present poems, beg with the " suggests t Coleridge Ship to on llnot indee COmmanding attributes When Lyric Wordsworth those of W( SChOlars e1 The; deEp, as fl neSS to it to C( Sligl While his j Instr received, t in 1798 by 218. The reviewer thinks Dowden's careful reprint is significant.because it presents the earliest "states" of both Wordsworth's and Coleridge's poems, beginning with the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and ending with the "Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey."l The critic suggests that the book must.be.studied as a whole to understand Coleridge or Wordsworth individually, or the two men in their relation— ship to one another, or the pair in relation tO‘a movement in literature ”not indeed initiated by them, but to which they supplied the first commanding and controlling impulse and influence.’ This critic also attributes great influence to Dorothy Wordsworth during the period when Lyrical Ballads was created. Critics increasingly noted Miss Wordsworth's influence after the publication of her letters along with those of Wordsworth and Coleridge. And in this later era Coleridge scholars emphasize Coleridge's poetic activity over that of Wordsworth. The influence of the two men on each other was strong and deep, but Coleridge's was by far the more active, as well as the finer and more penetrating; and the immense receptive— ness of Wordsworth must have acted as a direct incitement to its exercise. The exercise was also a powerful stimulus to Coleridge's own genius, and if the direct product seems slight in bulk, the quality was almost unsurpassably fine, while much of its force must have passed into the work of his friend. Instead of being surprised that Lyrical Ballads was not well received, the critic notes that the book was reviewed after its publication in 1798 by most major critical organs, and "these behaved very well, l"'Lyrical Ballads.’ Edited by E. Dowden," Athenaeum, No. 3263, May 10, 1890, p. 599. 2Ibid., p. 599. consideri: the book. the reviei that it he Dowden di( presented The edition 01 Cottle whc Six years actually P Pneumatic Proofreadi his lines, and Wordsw errors the SuPPlied b the anthor Coleridge infomatio MEly 10?"; 2m 3.1. N0. 3291, 1 4Tho July 4, l8 219. considering the shock they receiVed from both the good and the bad in the book."1 Because several editions of Lyrical Ballads were printed, the reviewer concludes that it was actually not the publishing failure that.it had been considered. The reviewer also expresses regret that Dowden did not collate the.severa1 texts of the poems that had been presented in various editions after Lyrical Ballads was published. The following November J. Dykes Campbell suggests that the edition of'Lyrical Ballads published in 1800 was proofread by Joseph 3 Cottle whose carelessness permitted major errors in the edition. Six years later Thomas Hutchinson declares that this edition was actually published in 1801 and was proofread by Humphrey Davy of the Pneumatic Institute in Bristol. Because of Davy's inaccurate proofreading, Wordsworth's habit of constantly worrying and changing his lines, and the poor communication between the printers at Bristol and Wordsworth at Grasmere, Hutchinson says the book was full of errors that required a long list of corrections.4 An errata list supplied by G.L. Crank enables Hutchinson to list the changes that the authors requested in the text. Hutchinson notes that letters by Coleridge and Wordsworth to Davy, Cattle, and Thomas Poole supply his information about the proofreader. l"'Lyrical Ballads.’ Edited by E. Dowden," Athenaeum, No. 3263, May 10, 1890, p. 599. 2 . Ibid., p. 600. 3J. Dykes Campbell, ”The 'Lyrical Ballads' of 1800," Athenaeum, No. 3291, November 22, 1890, p. 699. Thomas Hutchinson, "The Text of Wordsworth," Athenaeum, No. 3584, July 4, 1896, p. 35. Hutc William Kn understand Hutchinson edition an1 Consequent. although t] earlier om The ( Wordsworth by W. Hale Prefessor 1 manuscript family. 1} motto of W( Poets,2 In 15 centennial beCause of the first i reception j Thou My 4, 189 220. Hutchinson also supplements earlier.statements by Professor William Knight that an American editor of Lyrical Ballads-did not ' understand the actual order in which the Ballads were printed in England. Hutchinson declares that the American editor started with the 1798 edition and then switched to the 1800 edition in his issue of Volume I. Consequently the American edition has errors not in other editions although the editor corrects some later errors and neglects to correct earlier ones.1 The edition of the Longmans' manuscript of Coleridge's and Wordsworth's poems that was begun by J. Dykes Campbell and completed by W. Hale White causes an 1897.Athenaeum reviewer to note that Professor Knight's edition of Coleridge's poems also borrows from this manuscript but with errors and without acknowledgement to the Longmans' family. The reviewer also traces the motto of Lyrical Ballads-and the motto of Wordsworth's 1807 edition of poems to Anderson's British 3%? In 1898 the Athenaeum reviewer praises Thomas Hutchinson's centennial edition of Lyrical Ballads as actually being a new book because of the preface and notes. The reviewer recounts the events of the first publication of this book and notes the negative critical reception it received from the original reviewers. In fairness to 1Thomas Hutchinson, "The Text of Wordsworth," Athenaeum, No. 3584, July 4, 1896, p. 35. 21bid. , pp. 31-32. these rev work of a1 Pye, the I interest i Coleridge‘ With obtaining 0f informa Cole HEnley to and on the it should White p0in editions p In 1 poems that the Critic and Suggem l”,b Edited by ; 2Riel 25. 1897, 1 Jammo if 4n I POEmS 0f C( 221. these reviewers, however, the critic contends that the true test of a work of art is time, and he notes that no centenaryedition of poems by Pye, the poet laureate in 1798, is forthcoming.1 Thus,this centennial interest in Lyrical Ballads.reflects the critics'increasing sense of Coleridge's and Wordsworth's contribution to British literature. 3. Textual Questions Concerning Some Shorter Poems With the emphasis on collecting all of Coleridge's writings and obtaining the best version of each poem, critics compiled various bits of information about Coleridge's shorter poems. Coleridge's poem entitled ”Mutual Passion" is reprted by W.E. Henley to be a modernized version of Ben Johnson's "A Nymph's Passion"; and on the basis of Henley's discovery, Richard Garnett concludes that it should not be printed as one of Coleridge's works.2 Then W. Hale White points out that the poem was not included in the collected editions prepared by Coleridge himself in 1828 and 1829.3 In 1899 W. Hale White publishes some manuscripts of Coleridge's poems that J. Dykes Campbell had begun to edit before his death, but the critic only notices Coleridge's contemptuous orders to Joseph Cottle and suggests that Cottle got his revenge when he wrote his memoirs.4 l"'Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth and S.T. Coleridge, l798.' Edited by Thomas Hutchinson," Athenaeum, No. 3690, July 16, 1898, p. 87. 2Richard Garnett, "Sibylline Leaves," Athenaeum, No. 3661, December 25, 1897, p. 885. 3W. Hale White, "Coleridge's 'Mutual Passion,'" Athenaeum, No. 3662, January l, 1898, p. 24. 4"A Facsimile Reproduction of the Proofs and M85. of some of the Poems of Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3746, August 12, 1899, p. 214. Cam] believes,v that the 1 Coleridge‘ "Little Mi Plump litt described contribute previons p diseoverie tracts and H.S, Young to the E PreVious p diScoverie previollsly 1"Li 2Fra (LA 3 P. 1, M 1888, p. l 1888 J. 1 ’P- 51 M No‘ 3255.1 1888 J. 1 .S September 1 J. : september 1 222. Campbell notes a sonnet called "Child of My Muse" which,he believes,was intended to be in an album., The discoverer concludes that the poem must have been written for the.fly-lead of a copy of Coleridge's poems, but Campbell disagrees.l And a poem beginning "Little Miss Fanny" provokes brief critical wrangling over whether plump little children in Coleridge's poems were more likely to be described as "cherubic" or "cubic."2 'Furthermore, in 1888 G. Grove contributes some trivial poems for which Campbell later provides previOus publication dates. And J. Dykes Campbell also contributes discoveries of Coleridge‘s poems, one found in a book of miscellaneous tracts and another in a notebook owned by E.H. Coleridge.3 In 1893 H.S. Young sends some marginalia and a sonnet "Farewell My Love!" to the Athenaeum, and J. Dykes Campbell provides the information about previous publications of the poem.4 Contributors frequently sent such discoveries to the Athenaeum and suggested that the poems had not been previously published. Then J. Dykes Campbell would write a brief l"Literary Gossip," Athenaeum, No. 2925, November 17, 1883, p. 638. 2Francis G. Waugh, "Lines by Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3144, January 28, 1888, p. 116. C.A. Ward, "Lines by Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3145, February 4, 1888, p. 147. W.E. Mozley, "Lines by Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3146, February 11, 1888, p. 179. 3J. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge Notes," Athenaeum, No. 3158, May 5, 1888, p. 566. J. Dykes Campbell, "Unpublished Verses by Coleridge,” Athenaeum, No. 3255, March 15, 1890, p. 341. J. Dykes Campbell, "A Sonnet by S.T. Coleridge. Original or Translated? " Athenaeum, No. 3331, August 29, 1891, p. 29. 4H.S. Young, ”Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3436, September 2, 1893, p. 322. J. Dykes Campbell, "Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3437, September 9, 1893, p. 356. article pr previous p dis coverie; recorded n lines, the of Colerid The c first in tp an eXpressi describes t questions a Where exPreSSes a W exalted him When the Cl reflection. the Story w: a Clear, Wej lnA C6 THYlor Cole] 223. article providing further information about the poem, including the previous publications or variant.texts of the poem. .Although several discoveries of little known minor poems.were made during this era and recorded in the Athenaeum, the critics agreed that, except for occasional lines, the poems were of little value and did not add much to the corpus of Coleridge's works. Section B l. The Shorter Poems and Odes a. Criticisms of "Love" The continuing popularity of Coleridge's love poetry is reflected first in the Blackwood's critic's interpretation of the poem "Love" as an expression of physical love, then in an Edinburgh Egyigw_essay that describes the softness of Coleridge's love poetry, and finally in some questions about textual matters in the Athenaeum. Whereas during Coleridge's lifetime, critics concluded that "Love" expresses an indirect philosophical attitude toward love as a passion, the Blackwood's critic describes the poem as a lover's dream, a vision of exalted human feeling, expressing a chastened and purified passion caught when the climax of physical love is past, "in the after glow of delicious reflection..."l Like earlier critics, the Blackwood's essayist marvels at the story within a story in which Coleridge meshes two complex emotions into a clear, well—integrated poem. 1"A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV. Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 574. angl sati penJ relj the her This criti an angel, of the re] in the poe betWeen re 011 t Excessiven of nature. Critic see inteEIatin lack of se dangerous 1 in the 10v vigour, an In L as the int: Was not pul 1II A l \ leEni hdinbur \SE I 3m 12. 1892, 1 224. And in the mystic tale itself there is all the mysterious anguish of baffled love to contrast with the love that is satisfied and victorious. The craze of melancholy passion, the penitence too late of the scornful lady, throws into sweetest relief that harmony of love.re5ponsive which is breathing.from the minstrel's harp, and from the maiden's "flitting blush," her "downcast eyes and modest grace." This critic believes all of the incidents of the poem, even the vision of an angel, add glories describing the emotion of love remembered. Instead of the relationship between ideal and real loves frequently interpreted in the poem by earlier critics, however, this critic sees a distinction between real passions fulfilled and unfulfilled. 0n the other hand, the Edinburgh reviewer in 1885 suggests an excessiveness in Coleridge's love poetry, "a certain voluptuous softness of nature." Because love is a matter of individual temperament, the critic sees it as a suitable topic for Coleridge's poetic method of integrating form and subject matter. But the reviewer believes Coleridge's lack of self-restraint and craving for sympathy make this kind of poetry dangerous because Coleridge's unchecked expression of dreamy tenderness in the love poetry approaches silkiness and is "wanting in masculine vigour, and incapable of rising to grandeur."2 In 1892 J. Dykes Campbell traces the early publication of "Love" as the introduction to a poem called "The Tale of the Dark Ladie" which was not published.3 And in 1899 the critic declares that but for the 1"A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV. Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 574. 2"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 163, July, 1885, p. 317. 3J.D. Campbell, "Scott on Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3394, November 12, 1892, p. 665. rough drai emit from versions c agree with H. Hale Wh Thus "Love" is Passion ra And the co: SChOlarly 1 Cole: cotltinue u of their gf lifetime, 1 by "Dejecti What Was SE A m characteps hopes and f contends th luA L“ of Mr. T. N H ~\ Pnems of Co 2”A T 225. rough drafts it would.be difficult to believe that the poem did not emit from the poet's brain.in a single hour of high inspiration. variant versions of the poem that were published earlier prompt the critic to agree with Coleridge that a particular stanza was.better omitted, although H. Hale White had praised the stanza for.its intrinsicbeauty.‘l Thus the major difference in later critical interpretations of "Love" is to View the poem in relation to the physical world and actual passion rather than, as earlier in the.century, in terms of an ideal love. And the contemporary interest in textual matters is also reflected in scholarly debates over variant forms of the poem. b. The Odes Coleridge's odes on France, Dejection, and the Departing Year continue to be grouped together by critics between 1870 and 1900 because of their general classification as odes; and, as during Coleridge's lifetime, "France: An Ode" generates the most critical interest followed by "Dejection: An Ode." Much of the criticism of the odes also repeats what was said about these poems during Coleridge's lifetime. A Blackwood's essay cast in the form of a dialogue among three characters repeats the theory that ”France: An Ode" reflects Coleridge's hopes and fears for the French Revolution.2 One Speaker, Geoffrey, contends that Coleridge recognized that his hopes for freedom were based 1"A De3cription of the Wordsworth and Coleridge M88 in the Possession of Mr. T. Norton Longman," Athenaeum, No. 3636, July 3, 1897, p. 31. ——"A Facsimile Reproduction of the Proofs and M35. of some of the Poems of Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3746, August 12, 1899, p. 214. 2"A Talk about Odes," Blackwood's, Volume 129, June, 1881, p. 797. 4__1 on the lit of libert; Four years poetic gen inspired b However, t the revolu the critic ing sense "France: 011 Whether from man's Way Colerid Whereas cr: on his Writ dialogue nc the truth I attitude tc Then 226. on the liberty.of nature and God's laws rather than on man's concept 1 of liberty as the freedom to break laws rather than to obey them. Four years later the.Edinburgh reviewer concludes that Coleridge's poetic genius was inspired by politics, and "France: An Ode" was inspired by Coleridge's disappointment in the French Revolution. However, this critic contends that when Coleridge's vision of hope in the revolution was destroyed, his poetic enthusiasm also faded. Thus the critic suggests that Coleridge's poetic soul died with his develop— ing sense that human liberty had been violated.1 After discussing "France: An Ode" the characters in the Blackwood's essay Speculate on whether the grief expressed in "Dejection: An Ode" might not result from man's having misunderstood the sublime teachings of nature in the way Coleridge decries the loss of his shaping power of imagination. Whereas critics during Coleridge's lifetime ignored Berkeley's influence on his writing in connection with "Dejection: An Ode" the Blackwood's dialogue notes that Coleridge is like Berkeley in stating one side of the truth too strongly; and Geoffrey states Coleridge's and Berkeley's attitude toward nature as follows: The mind that perceives, receives those impressions from the object perceived, and those, only, which it is at that time is capable of receiving. Nature, therefore, Speaks of freedom to the aspiring spirit, while to the willing slave her voice is dumb; and moves man's heart most powerfully when she coin- cides with his joy and sorrow; when she shines on the bride and drOpS tears over our dead. l"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.-—Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 318. 2"A Talk about Odes," Blackwood's, Vblume 129, June, 1881, p. 799. The concept 01 who make I nature mig In J the shapin its loss 1 his poetic turn to me other men, Alth cements 0. 1885 and l the Depart; describes . but GEOffr. ed exhibit; that becam direct the Pindaric.3 ThESe In 227. The character Geoffrey compares the Coleridgean and Berkeleyan concept of nature with the "pathetic fallacy" of poets:like Tennyson who make nature conform to the moods of the individual, although nature might actually have a dress of quite unlike character in reality. In 1887 the Quarterly reviewer notes that Coleridge exercises the shaping power of his imagination at the same time that he mourns its loss in "Dejection: An Ode."1 Because Coleridge felt that he lost his poetic powers, however, the critic thinks it natural that he would turn to metaphysics: "He resorted to the tension of metaphysics, as other men, under mental distress, resort to strong physical exertion."2 Although the Quarterly briefly notes "Dejection" and the Edinburgh comments on "France" in their surveys of Coleridge's life and Work in 1885 and 1887, the Blackwood's dialogue is the only comment on "Ode to the Departing Year" as well. The third Speaker of the dialogue, Basil, describes this ode as a poem of lyrical exaltation of force and fury, but Geoffrey notes that it is unequal in its parts and without the sustain— ed exhibition of power reflected in "France: An Ode." And Henry contends that because it is rather disconnected, the preface is necessary to direct the reader. Basil jokingly counters that this makes the ode more Pindaric.3 These brief comments indicate that the odes have about the same limited critical interest as they had in Coleridge's lifetime with the 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly ngigy, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 89. 2353., p. 88. 3"A Talk about Odes," Blackwood's, Volume 129, June, 1881, p. 800—801, same emph political poem no 11 character change in Whe] they rece: series of letters re t0 write a as it was Crabb Robj by the auc Robinson V, Play to 81 Write a t] 60mment re on but sut allnouncmE establishE at on Ce . an 1‘. w in 228. same emphasis on "France" and "Dejection." And Coleridge's.change in political views with "France: An.0de" is again asserted although the poem no longer has the contemporary interest, and Coleridge's moral character is not attacked in conjunction with the notice of his change in political views. 2. Commentaries on Coleridge's Plays Whereas Coleridge's plays.were ignored between 1835 and 1870, they receive renewed attention beginning with the publication of a series of letters in the Westminster Review in 1870. TWO of Byron's letters referring to the production of Remorse and Coleridge's promise to write a tragedy prompt the critic to trace the history of this play as it was first rejected and then performed at Drury Lane theatre. Crabb Robinson's letter declaring that the tragedy was well received by the audience in 1813 prompts the critic to.point out that because Robinson was a friend of Coleridge's he was naturally anxious for the play to succeed.1 Byron's letter mentioning Coleridge's promise to write a tragedy encourages the critic's speculation as to whether this comment refers to Zapolya or some other play that Coleridge was working on but subsequently destroyed.2 Three years later a note in the Athenaeum announcing the discovery of a manuscript for a second play, Osorio, establishes that Coleridge was, in fact, engaged in writing two plays at once. l"Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 94, July, 1870, p. 2. 21bid., p. 5. The printed 1‘ previous] Coleridge Coleridge not retur play that incorpora adds a mo conventio excisions At any m M t in future Charles L from the . tholight t friend, w Lik rePests e made in h l" p. 391. 2n 3" 1 E \gh 229. The Athenaeum reviewer.declares thatthis manuscript of Osorio, printed in 1873 has little value except to present some of Coleridge's previously unpublished poetic passages. The same criticisms of Coleridge's dramas are made after 1870 as were prevalent before Coleridge's death, although the manuscript of Osorio which Sheridan had not returned to Coleridge enables this critic to note additions to the play that caused it to be more successfully performed when Osorio was incorporated into Remorse. The Athenaeum critic believes a new ending adds a moral to the whole play, although the earlier ending is less conventional and more impressive. The critic also theorizes that many excisions in the play Were the work of the stage manager or a Mr. Arnold. At any rate, the reviewer concludes that the variations in the text of Remorse that occur in the earlier Osorio should be inserted as footnotes in future editions of Remorse. The 1873 edition of Osorio also includes Charles Lamb's Preface and Coleridge's Epilogue, which was resurrected from the Morning Chronicle. The reviewer quotes a Times critic who thought the Preface and Epilogue were by the same author, a ”good—natured friend, who had an interest in injuring the play."2 Like the Athenaeum critic of 1873, the Edinburgh reviewer in 1885 repeats essentially the same criticiSms of Remorse that J.T. Coleridge made in his Quarterly Review essay in 1814.3 Then the play is ignored l"Coleridge's 'Osorio,'" Athenaeum, No. 2396, September 27, 1873, p. 391. 2Ibid., p. 392. 3”English MEn of Letters, edited by John Morley.-—Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 318. until J. Beegzee f Sheridan' on Coleri the lines Dri It' Campbell spite of because 0 Sheridan' that of c When the ‘ The the drama- SuCcess 0 13511er3 and Was pt Published theOrizes, because t the print. lJ. NO- 3258, 2n 230. until J. Dykes Campbell solicits variant editions of Osorio and Remorse first in 1890 and then in 1892. Campbell concludes that ‘ Sheridan's famous parody of Osorio was more a summary than a travesty. on Coleridge's poetic abilities because Coleridge actually did write the lines: Drip! drip! drip! drip! in such a place as this It has nothing else to do but drip! drip! drip!l Campbell also shows that Sheridan did reply to Coleridge's letter in spite of Coleridge's public denial, and Sheridan rejected Osorio because of the obscurity of the last three acts. Campbell Supports Sheridan's judgment by noting such gross deficiencies in the play as that of Coleridge forgetting to have a character in the drama killed when the occasion warranted.2 Two years later J. Dykes Campbell supplements his information about the dramatic development from Osorio to Remorse to account for the Success of Remorse when it was produced at Drury Lane theatre. Campbell believes the play was a success because it ran twenty nights in London and was performed in several provinces. TWO editions of the play were published while it was being performed at Drury Lane, and Campbell theorizes that some segments of the play were deleted for performance because they delayed the action. Then they were probably replaced in the printed edition; but which edition represented the drama as produced, lJ. Dykes Campbell, ”Coleridge's 'Osorio' and 'Remorse,'" Athenaeum, No. 3258, April 5, 1890, p. 445. ZIbid., p. 446. ‘ Campbell: 7 Thu: survived : i Coleridge ‘ l was writir who had be Coleridge‘ But the ma Was to en; reinforce and his p] As v Mariner" E Supernatur CatEgOry. given durj Poems duI-i i in 1871 D} a region b delj 0rde lJ. NO- 3374, 231. Campbell says there is no way of knowing.1 Thus the discovery of the manuscript of Osorio, which had survived a fire at the Drury Lane Theatre after not.being returned t0' Coleridge by Sheridan, solves the mystery of the two plays Coleridge was writing at the same time, Zapolya and Osorio, and redeems Sheridan, who had been accused of being unduly negative in his response to Coleridge's dramatic offering and of not replying to Coleridge's letter. But the major contribution of the discovery of the manuscript of Osorio was to enable critics to compare it with the revised play Remorse to reinforce the critical conclusion that Coleridge lacked dramatic skill, and his.plays were better read than performed. 3. Poems of the Supernatural As with earlier critics, Coleridge's "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "Christabel" continue to be the most popular poems of the supernatural with "Kubla Khan” acknowledged as the third poem in this category. Although some interpretations differing from earlier ones are given during this era, criticisms often repeat the evaluations given the poems during Coleridge's lifetime. For example, the Blackwood's critic in 1871 praises Coleridge's ability to describe a supernatural world, a region betWeen heaven and earth. Its wild spiritual forces, its weird dangers and delights——the primal struggle between light and darkness, order and chaos——the everlasting warfare between the 1J. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge’s 'Osorio' and 'Remorse,'" Athenaeum, No. 3374, June 25, 1892, p. 834. Spi huu def fan the son and Similarly the Ancie absolutel SUggests fusing pov the Edinbl Express101 my the large: of art.4 of the Ant COleridge POetry, "Kub three Poem '"A Taylor Col 2"Co P- 391. "En ['"Sa 1887) p. 8 232. spirits of earth and hell and that feeble and ignorant ‘ humanity which.yet is panoplied and shed in invulnerable defences by the protection and inspiration of God——are familiar to him as the air he breathes; these are his themes, the burden of his lofty, historic, prophetic song——and in this wondrous Sphere he is at once supreme and alone. Similarly, in 1873 the Athenaeum repeats the comment that "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Kubla Khan," and "Christabel" are the most absolutely dreamlike compositions in literature. Although the critic suggests that the poems lack dramatic terror, he notes Coleridge's fusing power of imagination.2 This fusing power is also described by the Edinburgh Review critic. who praises Coleridge's accuracy of expression and the Spontaneity of his ballad style.3 And for the Quarterly Review critic of 1887, Coleridge's poetic voice satisfies the largest range of human sympathy and the most exacting condifions of art.4 Because of Coleridge's two most original poems, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” and "Christabelfl the critic declares that Coleridge must be acknowledged the founder of the Romantic School of poetry. "Kubla Khan" continues to be the least noticed of Coleridge's three poems of the supernatural. Except for the Edinburgh reviewer's 1"A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV.——Samue1 Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 575. 2"Coleridge's 'Osorio,‘" Athenaeum, No. 2396, September 27, 1873, p. 391. 3"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.—-Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 321. 4"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 85. descripti praisewor fascinati interpret the best compositi too curio The criti lines in but the tv mood of t} Opposite 1 in the p01 Clash Wit! objeCtiVe In ‘ Offer an j into One 1 lll‘lCOnsciol is mOre fL English la critical d Coleridge! 233. description of the poem as a word impression of a dream that is praiseworthy for its oriental gorgeousness of diction and metrical fascination, only the Athenaeum critic of 1893 builds an extensive interpretation of the poem. This critic has an elaborate theory that the best poetry fuses Spontaneous creativity and organized poetic composition. And the reviewer suggests that it is.best not to consider too curiously the processes of revision that produced a beautiful poem. The critic is willing to believe Coleridge composed the first eleven lines in the deep reverie or sleep that he describes in the preface, but the twelfth line combines the "rapturous exclamatory method of one mood of the poetic mind with the simple descriptive methods of the opposite mood." Thus, the critic contends that the emotions aroused in the poet's soul by the pageantry of nature and the world of man clash with the poet's creative effort to record this pageantry in an objective poetic picture. In "Kubla Khan" the critic suggests that Coleridge's goal is to offer an imaginative landscape that combines all that could be brought into one beautiful picture of the luxurious and wonderful. Instead of unconscious composition, however, the critic declares that "Kubla Khan" is more full of subtle artistic effects than any other poem in the English language. And although Hartleyan psychology seldom provided a critical device for interpretation during this period, the critic defends Coleridge's preface as an example of Hartleyan dream psychology because Coleridge been pres chair whi "(t poem, and were made repeats C 1 Poem and REVIEW cr were fini effective Vagueness Stand out the witch the 1334 Onl "Christab‘ whEI‘Eas t‘ a myStEIi \ iS a mOre Coleridge says.he dreamed the poem after taking an anodyne that had been prescribed for a slight indisPOSition and falling asleep in his chair while reading Purchas gig Pilgrimage.1 "Christabel" is still Coleridge's second most often criticized poem, and critics generally repeat the same comments about it that were made during Coleridge's lifetime. The westminster reviewer repeats Gillman's argument that Coleridge had a plan to finish the 2 And an Edinburgh poem and Wordsworth's contention that he didn't. Review critic doubts that the poem actually could be better if it were finished because the fragmentary character of the poem adds an effective note of mystery.3 The reviewer feels that the poem's vagueness adds to the imaginative effect and makes the isolated scenes stand out more clearly. This vagueness of poetic outline produces the witchery by daylight, this Edinburgh critic contends, echoing the 1834 comments by H.N. Coleridge.4 Only a Blackwood's critic presents an extensive interpretation of "Christabel" as a romance of Christianity, a legend of sainthood. Whereas the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner” is a poetic introduction to a mysterious world beyond reality, this critic believes "Christabel" is a more Specific identification of the evil in this mysterious world, 1"The Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3425, June 17, 1893, p. 759. 2"Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Part II," Westminster Review, Volume 94, July, 1870, p. 14. 3"English Men of Letters, edited by John Mbrley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 322. 4Ibid., p. 321. 234. although to this . leaves he has evil suffering Christabe The criti mood of t and dark The if the my that has Suggests this poet at the 6n the poem, Cri l'The Rime SuParnatu The Elégh b°th see ll'A TaYlor Co 235. although the nature of this evil is deliberately left vague. According to.this critic, Christabel is faultless and holy, althngh her innocence leaves her defenseless in the face of evil whereas the witch Geraldine has evil wisdom to aid her. The critic sees Christabel as a martyr suffering for her race without knowing it. Because the reviewer regards Christabel as a Christ figure, she must suffer for the sins of others. The critic notes Coleridge's blending of natural surroundings into the mood of the characters with the result that the clock, the creatures, and dark nature are uncomfortable because of a sense of encroaching evil. The critic believes that some of the effect would be destroyed if the mystery were resolved and, also, that Coleridge set up a situation that has no possibility of "facile" completion. Therefore, the critic suggests that Coleridge's poetic instinct guided the impulse to leave this poetic vision unresolved.l Thus, the same conclusion is reached at the end of the century as at the end of Coleridge's lifetime, that the poem, finally, is better left unfinished. Critics display more extensive and more varied criticisms of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" than of the other two poems of the supernatural but, again, with much repetition of earlier criticisms. The Blackwood's critic of 1871 and the Edinburgh reviewer of 1885 both see the poem as an allegory of Coleridge's own mind. 1"A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV.——Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 572. Whereas Coleridg reviewer because poetic p this one Can be h; Combined Opium to The MariHErn than "Ch: desCripti his tale. Sinks in the Story '00 much i the reVie I I l 1n ' TaYlOr Co I ‘ ZuE % Ib \ 236. What the poet himself was in the world, his Mariner is in the poem. Life calls, and pleasure, and even a certain duty; but the power of the invisible has come in, and caught the soul out of the real, out of the palpable. Here are a hundred things not dreamt of in any philosophy; good and evil, cunfing and blessing, close to, brushing against your common- est strain of existence. Whereas this Blackwood's reviewer comments that an invisible world drew Cflflwg,HMhmmumu,wwfmmmemflwmm,memmeh reviewer suggests that the poem is an indication of Coleridge's future because Coleridge analyzed and theorized upon his feelings until his poetic power was dimmed. Like earlier critics in the Edinburgh Review, this one suggests that too much analysis of one's own mental processes can be harmful. The critic believes Coleridge's tendency to self—analysis combined with metaphysics, ill health, disappointment, and particularly opium to decrease Coleridge's mental vigour.2 The Edinburgh reviewer contends that "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” is more spontaneous and creates a more powerful general effect than ”Christabel" achieves. He particularly praises Coleridge's descriptions of places and the spell that drives the mariner to tell his tale. The chief objection this critic registers is that the ship sinks in front of witnesses. Like H.N. Coleridge this critic believes the story would be better if the mariner were the only witness. And the reviewer repeats Coleridge's declaration that the poem suffers from too much moralizing.3 1"A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV.——Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood‘s, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 566. 2”English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 323. 3ibid., p. 322. Th mariner The poem invisibl listener believes . . l v131on. Wit reality, in the m; Poem to 1 mariner 5 The critj to the 1: heights e Cri earlier P critic SI POetry be published the Play 1"A TaYlor Co 21b \ 237. The Blackwood's critic is most fascinated with the way the mariner leads the wedding guest from the visible to the invisible world. The poem's motto suggests to the critic that "There is more of the invisible than the visible in the world around us." The unwilling listener is gradually lead into the invisible world until the reviewer believes he might well quesion which is reality and which is the vision.1 With a willing susPension of disbelief to convey the movement into un— reality, the critic thinks the reader can capture the sense of isolation in the mariner's mind. The critic relates the acts of nature in the poem to the spiritual loneliness of the mariner and suggests that the mariner stands for all humanity in complete isolation on the ship.2 The critic believes the idea br this poetic excursion from the visible to the invisible world was suggested to Coleridge by the scenery on the heights of Quantock. Critics after 1870 were also interested in the details of the earlier publication of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." The Blackwood's critic suggests that Coleridge lacked the ability to evaluate his own poetry because he allowed the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner” to be published anonymously in the Lyrical Ballads whereas he insisted that the play Remorse was of high poetic quality that warranted recognition. 1”A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV.-—Samue1 Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 566. 21bid., p. 568. The 9% popularlj the crit: the scape accomts in an er; were the or fairy neither 1 the divis more out An reviews 1 The revie CaPtalin 1 in 1633. a Charact Mariner i ln s 1887, p. 238. The Quarterly revhwer also declares that the poem was initially not . popularly received. Basing his opinion on Alois Brandl's account, the critic notes that Wordsworth thought ill of the poem and made it the scapegoat for the failure of Lyrical Ballads as a whole.1 Brandl accounts for the poor reception of this poem because it was published in an era of educational reform when moral tales and useful knowledge were the order of the day. The critic quotes Brandl as saying a fable or fairy tale would have been tolerated, but "the Ancient Mariner was neither fish, fleshnor fowl."2 Furthermore, the critic suggests that the division of poetic labor between Coleridge and Wordsworth was even more out of place than the poem was in the society of its time.3 An Athenaeum essay describes the poem's initial reception and reviews Ivor James' critical study of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." The reviewer agrees with James that Coleridge‘s poem was influenced by Captain Thomas James' account of a voyage which was published in London in 1633. However, the critic believes Ivor James' effort to establish a character identity between Captain James and Coleridge's ancient mariner is too fanciful and shadowy to invite serious discussion.4 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 156, July, 1887, p. 84. 2%., p. 84. 3%.,11. 82. AJ. Dykes Campbell, "Unpublished Verses by Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3255, March 15, 1890, p. 335. The Wordswort about it navigatio hints wer the organ Wordswort Coleridge the revie worth rea The familiar 1817. ca 0f the po Mariner” Statement Sir John SuggESts Th1 ShPemau l J. No. 3255, 2 g; 3d. NO- 3256: “i 239. The critic also quibbles with James over how much of a contribution Wordsworth made to the poem and how seriously DeQuincey's statements about it should be taken. Although Wordsworth suggested the supernatural navigation of the ship, Cruickshank contributed the skéhton ship, and hints were taken from Captain James' voyage, the critic asserts that the organizational genius in the poem is Coleridge's. He also quotes Wordsworth's criticism of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and some of Coleridge's comments on Wordsworth's poetry in the Biographia.l Then the reviewer concludes that Ivor James' bookies some errors, but it is worth reading by lovers of this poem, a category that includes everybody.2 The following week, Dykes Campbell criticizes James for not being familiar with the date of the glosses that were added to the poem in 1817. Campbell also cites some possible printers' errors in the wording of the poem and suggests sources of material in the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" that Ivor James had not mentioned. Campbell mentions Coleridge's statement that he incorporated material from Burnett, his own Osorio, and Sir John Davies.3 In spite of his own comment on sources, Campbell suggests that source hunters are victims of the "localizing craze."4 Thus, from the conventional praise of Coleridge as a poet of the supernatural in the Blackwood's essay of 1871 to the end of the century, lJ. Dykes Campbell, "Unpublished Verses by Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3255, March 15, 1890, p. 335—336. 2;p;g., p. 336. 3J. Dykes Campbell, "The Source of ‘The Ancient Mariner,'" Athenaeum, No. 3256, March 22, 1890, p. 371. 4rbid., p. 372. critics of influ Road £9; Exe Coleridge bias in t ignored b Other fou criticiZe letters, ' V evaluated Coleridge The Series of essays in COletidge latters h in 1896, bihtaphi. Selectiorl 240. critics have turned to close.textual.study and a.search.for sources of influence on Coleridge's poem, a prelude tonohn Livingston Lowes' Road £2 Xanadu. Lanna Coleridge's nggg Reception fggm_l§zg_gg_lggg Introduction Except for the westminster Review, the journals that reviewed Coleridge's prose works between 1870 and 1902 diSplayed no political bias in the evaluation of Coleridge's prose. However, the prose was ignored by the Quarterly Review and evaluations varied widely in the other four journals. For one thing, the kinds of prose that were criticized during this period differed from earlier times. Coleridge's letters, notebooks, and marginalia were the primary prose works evaluated, and the editors often received more attention than what Coleridge wrote. The letters and notebooks received some individual comments in two series of letters in the Westminster Review in 1870 and in several brief essays in the Athenaeum. But the major treatment of these elements of Coleridge's prose were reserved for E.H. Coleridge's edition of the letters in 1895 and his selections from the notebooks, Anima Poetae, in 1896. Because E.H. Coleridge selected letters and notes to reflect biographical qualities of S.T. Coleridge, critics evaluated E.H. Coleridge's selection as well as the prose and biographical content. The first section of this e his lette r - i on his ne Bee 2 with text 1 is also 1 marginali Subject I: in des crj say. Ane Writing , the new e as they v The between ; books of Chhtinue. The M letters 3 letters 1 I from tim. 241. of this era in Coleridge's prose reception considers the reviews of his letters, and the second section considers the reviews and comments on his notebooks between 1870 and 1902. Besides the notebooks and letters, the critical preoccupation with textual studies that was prevalent in connection with the poetry is also reflected in the criticism of new discoveries of Coleridge's marginalia in the Athenaeum and in Blackwood's. Critics noted the Subject matter of the marginalia, but they were often more interested in describing its condition than in evaluating what Coleridge had to say. And new editions of Coleridge's EE§l£.I§;E and Biographia Literaria provoke more criticism of the editors than of Coleridge's writing. The third section of this study of Coleridge's prose considers the new editions of his Works and the new discoveries of marginalia as they were reviewed by the critics. A. Coleridge's Letters The critical interest in Coleridge's biography that was reflected between 1835 and 1870 in the publication of some of his letters and books of personal recollections by people who had known Coleridge continued after 1870 in more extensive publications of his letters. The Westminster Review devoted two articles to previously unpublished letters in April and July of 1870. These were followed by individual letters by or to the poet Coleridge that were printed in the Athenaeum from time to time. Finally, E.H. Coleridge's biographically arranged edition in the 1 ‘ Th reflect deviate ' about he the prev a book r Paople t interpre about Co he lived 0n Raw, 1813. H and frie Li Bowring Position COlEridg one inst book On "A beaut 242. edition of selected letters by S.T. Coleridge climaxed this.interest in the letters in 1896. The two series of letters published in the Westminster Review reflect this journal's continuing independence and willingness to deviate from the traditional reviews which published only comments about books and not original material. The Westminster publishes the previously unpublished letters, some marginalia that had accompanied a book returned with a letter to Dr. Brabant, and some letters by.other people that add comments about Coleridge as well. And the reviewer interprets the letters with respect to the information they contribute about Coleridge's life, particularly in the 1815 t0'1816 period when he lived with the Morgans at Calne. 0n the basis of a playbill advertising a local production of Remorse, the critic concludes that Coleridge was in Calne as early as 1813. He also suggests that Coleridge went to Calne for Morgan's care and friendship and the company of Reverend William Lisle Bowles. Like the earlier Westminster Review critics, beginning with John Bowring in 1830, this critic defends the necessitarian philosophical position in opposition to Coleridge's theories. Thus he objects to Coleridge‘s religious views and statements on philosophical necessity. One instance of this are the comments on Coleridge's marginalia in a book on modern Calvinsim by Dr. Williams. The critic first praises "A beautiful Coleridgean view of eternal punishment with its Subtle metaphys the Deit Cause te The crit mind is ' with the of philc the crit acknowle i ; tarians; attempt COleridg PSYCholo orientat COIeridg the Earl Coleridg the 1813 "SWeet a Co familiar 1% EEEEEEEE 211 \ 243. metaphysical distinctions," and then criticizes Coleridge's concept of the Deity.l‘ The critic objects that Coleridge's theory of a First Cause tends to degrade the Deity into a component part of the universe. The critic.suggests that Coleridge perhaps only avows that the human mind is incapable of penetrating the mystery of origin and must be content with the fact of existence. Coleridge's argument against the doctrine of philosophical necessity contains a definition of the term which, the critic believes, no intelligent advocate of the doctrine would acknowledge. The critic notes how Coleridge disagrees with the necessi— tarians; then he objects to Coleridge's and Kant's categories as an attempt to pigeon—hole external realities, and the reviewer describes Coleridge's note on Locke as ”a most perverted representation of Locke's psychology."2 The critic reflects, then, the same philosophical orientation as John Bowring and John Stuart Mill in opposition to Coleridge. That he also reflects a similar political orientation to the earlier radicals is reflected also in the critic‘s belief that Coleridge was in error about the need for Parliamentary reform such as the 1813 Corn Law struggle. However, the reviewer praises Coleridge's "sweet and magnanimous nature" for admitting his error. Comments on the other letters are expanded into something like a familiar essay. Coleridge's comment on the Montanists causes the critic l"Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Westminster Review, Volume 93, April, 1870, p. 171. 21bid. , p. 172. to inch refers 1 conside] psycholc that W01 in the _E of Words " his obje WhiCh Co the West its om in J.S. Th‘ David Han theories that the expreSSeg in this s between 1 1n Wegt - % 21b \ 244. to include the history of the Mfontanists.l A letter in which Coleridge refers to the newly written Biographia Literaria causes the critic to consider Sir James Mackintosh's reaction to the chapter on associationist psychology. Commenting on Coleridge's letter to Dr. Brabant which notes that Wordsworth probably will not approve of the criticism of his poetry in the Biographia, the critic praises the success of this criticism of Wordsworth and of Coleridge's opinions on poetic diction as well as his objections to Coleridge's comments on associationist psychology in which Coleridge praises Descartes at the expense of Hobbes. But like the Westminster reviewers of old, the critic most praises the views of its own people, in this case the exposition of the associationist theory in J.S. Mill's preface to a new edition of James Mill's Analysis 9f Egg samene- The critic chides Coleridge for inconsistency because he praises David Hartley in the poem "Religious Musings" and then attacks his theories in the Biographia.2 The critic repeats J.S. Mill's criticism that the Biographia is made up of hints rather than proofs, then he expresses surprise that Coleridge completed even a fragment of his promised Logosophia. Indolence and Coleridge's visionary attitude are suggested in this statement and in the critic‘s comments on Coleridge's distinction between Fancy and Imagination. 1"Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 93, April, 1870, p. 174. 21bid. , p. 176. poet em Review . COmment: approac] in whic] describ< invalid fOI‘ plea t0 avoi4 COIerid; how he ( book.3 the 0pit Tt Golgi-idg 1. We -c w 2' 16)" E 3] 245. ...surprising us with a fragment of the Dynamic Philosophy on the interpretation of two inexhuastibly re-ebullient forces, fairly breaks down in his speculations on the Esemplastic Power, and vanishes in a beautiful Coleridgean mist, in which the Imagination is magnified into a twofold essence, creative and imitative, and the Fancy figures as "a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time." The reviewer's comments on Coleridge's interest in Bowles as a poet end the first series of letters in the April, 1870, Westminster Review. The next issue of July, 1870, begins with some letters commenting on Coleridge's plays, and then the reviewer cautiously approaches the problem of Coleridge's drug addiction with some letters in which Coleridge consults Dr. Brabant professionally. The critic describes Coleridge as a remarkable man who was also a constitutional invalid.2 He repeats DeQuincey's charge that Coleridge took opium for pleasure and Mrs. H.N. Coleridge's reply that Coleridge took Opium to avoid pain and calm his nervous system. The critic describes a note Coleridge wrote in 1826 which he considers Coleridge's true account of how he came to take drugs as a panacea for pain recommended in a medical book.3 The critic accepts Gillman's account that Coleridge threw off the opium habit, and he praises Coleridge for reconquering his freedom. This article also pays tribute to J.S. Mill for his criticism of Coleridge. The critic agrees with Mill that Coleridge tried to bring l"Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 93, April, 1870, p. 176. 2"Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1815— 16," Westminster Review, Volume 94, July, 1870, p. 5. 3Ibid., p. 7. religio more or suggest effort the cri graciou C leads fl style." 0: m r i W1 Such as Would u: that he Colerid! of lbs l Hazlitt critic I negative 1 16," ESE .M__. _l i Mix-n95” .. ~ r__,_. 7 246. religion and philosophy into harmony, but the effort results in "a more or less conscious insincerity." An angry letter from Dr. Brabant suggests to the critic that Brabant would be offended by Coleridge's effort to reconcile contradictions in religion and philosophy. However, the critic sees Coleridge's reply to Dr. Brabant as an expression of gracious magnanimity. Coleridge's description of his difficulty in prose composition leads the critic to consider Coleridge's "affluent but laborious style." Often rhythmical, sometimes emphatic, occasionally rich with striking felicities of language or Splendid with an illuminating rhetoric, it is yet painfully elaborated, and somewhat deficient in sweet natural grace and spontaneous ebullience. The only wonder is that with this "threefold ordonnance of Sound, of Image, and of Logic," and his grammatical double decalogue of "bis- decalogue" ever before him, the spontaneous activities necessary to succesiful composition were not terrified into h0peless asphyxia! Such as involved style prompts the critic to specuhte that Coleridge would naturally find composition difficult, and it is not surprising that be projected works that he was later reluctant to complete. Coleridge's style also motivates the critic to consider Hazlitt's review of 13g Statesman's Manual in the Edinburgh Review in 1816. Although Hazlitt had also discussed Coleridge's prose style extensively, the critic notes one of Coleridge's letters that attributes Hazlitt's negative criticism to Hazlitt's sense of being under obligation to l”Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1815— 16," Westminster Review, Volume 94, July, 1870, p. 19. Colerid radical open to notes t he does View ei minute distort A edition and Sir mmYOf C0nclud that rew relatior addicth WOrdswm his POEE l 16," E 23 3 and his BeaUEOHt 247. Coleridge and resentingit.l And this critic notes that Coleridge's radical changes of position in politics and.religion would leave him open to ridicule by an unscrupulous reviewer. Although the critic notes that Hazlitt did ridicule this aspect of Coleridge's behavior, he does not offer a suggestion to account for Coleridge's changes of view either. Rather, the critic describes Hazlitt's essay as a minute study of life curiously distorted in every part, and with every distortion enormously magnified. After these varied comments on two series of letters in the Westminster Review, the Athenaeum reviews William Knight's two volume edition of letters from Coleridge, Wordsworth and his sister, Southey, and Sir Walter Scott to Sir George and Lady Beaumont in 1887. Because many of Wordsworth's letters had been published previously, the reviewer concludes that the central interest of the volume centers on letters that reveal the extent of Coleridge's drug addiction, his unhappy relationship with his wife and his increasing inability to conceal the addiction from his associates.3 After noting Coleridge's break with Wordsworth, the reviewer expresses pleasure that Coleridge later retitled his poem "Lines to Wordsworth" after having issued the poem without l"Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1815— 16," Westminster Review, Volume 94, July, 1870, p. 21. 2Ibid., p. 20. 3”Memorials of Coleorton: Being Letters from Coleridge, Wordsworth, and his Sister, Southey, and Sir Walter Scott to Sir George and Lady Beaumont, 1803—1834," Athenaeum, No. 3134, November 19, 1887, p. 668. WordSW( reviewe letters 1 to the differ might h the Qua I E.H. Co Selecte Whereas Persona With mu English of the htmr. ‘30 rresp misses is glad the let 1 and his Beauhon 2V NO' 34} 248. Wordsworth's name during the period when they were not friendly. The reviewer praises editor Knight's chronological arrangement of the letters and notes that some might be out of order. In 1893 J. Dykes Campbell contributes a single letter by Coleridge to the Athenaeum in which the poet states how his religious views differ from those of the Quakers. Campbell suggests that Coleridge might have exaggerated similarities between his views and those of the Quakers because he was writing to a Quaker, Thomas Wilkenson. In 1895 and 1896 the Athenaeum and Edinburgh Review both notice E.H. Coleridge's edition of Coleridge's letters. The letters were selected for the edition to show various aspects of Coleridge's life. Whereas the Athenaeum critic notes that continuing interest in Coleridge's personality caused the cultivated world to await this two volume edition with much curiosity, the volumes are attacked by serious students of English literature because E.H. Coleridge's selection and organization of the letters are such that the interest of the reader is focused on the letter writer's personality rather than on the quality of his correspondence. Therefore, the critic thinks editor E.H. Coleridge misses both the values and the deficts of the letters although the critic is glad the editor did not attempt to improve the literary quality of the letters at the expense of Coleridge's personal expression. The l"Memorials of Coleorton: Being Letters from Coleridge, Wordsworth and his Sister, Southey, and Sir Walter Scott to Sir George and Lady Beaumont, 1803—1834,” Athenaeum, No. 3134, November 19, 1887, p. 669. 2J. Dykes Campbell, ”Coleridge on Quaker Principles,” Athenaeum, No. 3438, September 16, 1893, p. 386. critioo he think what ted Be biographj except w] life. A] 0f the a1 better he literary COmments Alt 0f whethe most of w Too Many We ten Pag Str Wri men day The criti Yet eXhau For thESe 1.. CO leridge m 249. critic.objects more to the matter than the manner of the letters although he thinks the length and great detail of the letters renders them some- , 1 what tedious. Because Dykes Campbell presented the major facts of Coleridge's biography, the critic thinks the letters are biographically superfluOus except where they shed additional light on obscure periods of Coleridge's life. And the selection of letters cannot provide a complete biography of the author's life; therefore, the critic thinks the editor might better have chosen letters of a more literary nature. Without the literary interest the reader's attention is focused on the poet's comments about his ailments, quarrels, and small personal matters. Although E.H. Coleridge says he selected the letters on the basis of whether they are readable and interesting, the critic declares that most of what Coleridge writes is readable, but much is uninteresting. Too many of the letters are fatiguing or distressing to read. We tire of his impassioned weakness, his hysterically expressed tenderness, his morbid sensibilities; and listening through page after page to the too uniformly and effeminately querulous strain of the letters selected to illustrate the "story of the writer's life," we are apt to forget that this puling senti— mentalist had a mind of masculine vigour, and in his earlier days an imagination as powerful as his analytic faculty. The critic concludes that the letters are of value to those who have not yet exhausted their curiosity about Coleridge as a psychological study. Fbr these readers, the qualities that others dislike will be of interest. 1"Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Edited by Ernest Hartley Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3532, July 6, 1895, p. 29. 21bid., p. 29. S for prO‘ Because enables criticis strengtl This cri Imtil t1 man is v researc} characte the SEES do not c Writer, charm of Ft total pe COlel’idg E Gill \ entitled 1H 21 3; 250. Six months later the Edinburgh reviewer praises E.H. Coleridge for providing enough letters to give a sense of Coleridge's personality. Because the reviewer believes understanding Coleridge's character enables a person to more fully understand his poetry, philosoPhy, and criticism, the reviewer thinks these letters give a sense of Coleridge's strengths and weaknesses, his intellectual power and his shortcomings. This critic believes Coleridge's poetry and prose had been criticized until there was little new to say; therefore, the personality of the man is what is still open to further understanding and critical research.2 For this reviewer the letters show a charm in Coleridge's character that explains the love his friends held for him.3 Like the Athenaeum critic, however, this reviewer suggests that the letters do not contribute to any reevaluation of Coleridge's importance as a writer. Nor does the reviewer think the letters reflect the distinctive charm of letters by Charles Lamb or Maria Edgeworth. Following his evaluation of the letters as they contribute to the total personality of the author, the critic surveys major aspects of Coleridge's life on the basis of the letters, James Gillman's daughter's lhg Gillmans 9f Highgate, and E.H. Coleridge's edition of the notebooks entitled Anima Poetae. Like most reviewers who used the biographical 1"Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Edited by Ernest Hartley Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 183, January, 1896, p. 99. 21bid., pp. 99-100. 3Ibid., p. 101. approach asPects a vision 1 i the prac the Pant planned as a poe that sin role.2 Co to Poole { I annuity remarkab But he t eXaggera beliEVes German p l" coleridg 251. approach, this critic.attempts to assess what he considers to;be major aspects of Coleridge's life and work. .He describes Coleridge as a visionary who had a tendency to formulate schemes without having the practical capacity to.carry them out. The critic gives as examples the Pantisocracy scheme in Coleridge's youth and the magpum 922g he planned in his old age.1 Coleridge is praised more for his contributions as a poet than as a philosopher or critic because the reviewer contends that since great poets are comparatively fewer, this is the higher role.2 Coleridge's magnanimous nature is praised on the basis of a letter to Poole praising Josiah Wedgwood after he withdrew his half of the annuity supporting Coleridge.3 And the critic also praises Coleridge's remarkable progress in his study of the German language and philOSOphy.4 But he takes issue with Dykes Campbell who suggests that Coleridge exaggerated the loneliness of his life in Germany. This reviewer believes Coleridge had a great need for kindred minds of the kind denied him when he left the Wordsworths in Germany.5 Although Coleridge studied German philosophy at Gottingen and found compatible intellectual ideas 1"Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Edited by Ernest Hartley Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 183, January, 1896, p. 103. 2;p;g., p. 106. 3;p;g., p. 108. tggpg., p. 110. 51bid., p. 111. and ass the Won Similarl to a la. w quarrel: Colerid; opium, .‘ degree < tranquil critic : with W0: Critic 1 Colerid} leCture: this cr athmat T more is l C0lie—rid 2 3 252. and associates, he was without the emotional ties of old friends when the Wordsworths continued on their tour, and he turned to his studies. Similarly, the criticrattributes Coleridge‘s separation from his wife to a lack of sympathy and understanding between them. Whereas the Athenaeum critic objects to the comments on Coleridge's ailments, quarrels, and other personal matters, this critic does not think Coleridge seems to have been a discontented man.1 In spite.of loneliness, opium, and economic need, the critic believes Coleridge found some degree of tranquillity through his philosophical studies and then true tranquillity when he went to live with James Gillman in 1816. The critic suggests that Coleridge's sensitive nature caused the arguments with Wordsworth but ill health and Opium were also factors.2 And the critic believes the letters of the last period do not accurately reflect Coleridge's mind because he was engaged in conversation, fragmentary lectures, essays, and isolated compositions for his magnum gpg_. But this critic believes Coleridge's mind was never idle. It worked "almost automatically and without a plan."3 The critic praises Coleridge's literary criticism and regrets that more is not included in the letters.4 And he expresses the conventional 1"Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Edited by Ernest Hartley Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 183, January, 1896, p. 113. 21bid., p. 115. 3 . Ibid., p. 117. 4Ibid., p. 119. regret credits thought I for fri critic The cri relatin reflect toward Compati Colerid C letters Would h; Sele cti< Colerid1 emphasi; Critics well. 1 adequate wherEaS h coleridg 253. regret that Coleridge's interest shifted away from literature, but he credits Coleridge's metaphysical speculations with stimulating the thoughts and works of younger thinkers. This reviewer emphasizes Coleridge's sensitive nature and need for friends. In spite of his various quarrels with.Wordsworth, the critic notes Coleridge's enduring friendship with Thomas Poole.l The critic believes the later letters show little of Coleridge's relatinship with his sons and daughter, although they accurately reflect Coleridge's diminishing affection for his wife and his attitude toward his brothers.2 The reviewer is especially pleased with the compatibility between generations reflected in the relationship between Coleridge and his nephews, H.N. and J.T. Coleridge.3 Critics who reviewed the individual letters and editions of letters published between 1870 and 1902 generally agreed that they would have preferred more literary criticism and less biography in the selection of letters that were printed. However, the fact that E.H. Coleridge organized his edition of his grandfather's letters to emphasize the biographical comments that they contained, forced the critics to emphasize the biographical information in their reviews as well. The Athenaeum critic believes Campbell's life of Coleridge was adequate and that further study should be made of Coleridge's works, whereas the Edinburgh Review critic believes little more is to be said 1‘Ietters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Edited by Ernest Hartley Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 183, January, 1896, p. 125. 2M” p. 127. 31bid., p. 128. about C ‘ critici biograp ' major r ' which i Colerid but sti conside T and the drug ad of the istic 0 Works w politic by E.H. for the of COle 1896. theSe f 254. about Coleridge's poetry and prose.because they.already had been criticized extensively. Therefore,.he is more pleased with the biographical arrangement of E.H. Coleridge's edition of letters. The major revelations of the letters concern Coleridge's drug addiction, which is no longer considered a matter that might offend members of Coleridge's family. Reviewers.attempted to record the details accurately but still with some degree of critical hesitancy because this is.still considered a delicate matter. The wide range of tOpics included in the Westminster Review series and the notices in the Athenaeum suggest much interest in Coleridge's drug addiction but also in other phases of his life as well. And the Westminster essay reflects a continuing political emphasis and defense of the radical position and necessitarianism that is no longer character— istic of the rival Whig and Tory reviews, which criticize individual works with a strong emphasis on the life of the author but withnt a political orientation toward his life and work. B. The Notebooks Although the Edinburgh Review essay on Coleridge's letters edited by E.H. Coleridge includes a consideration of the notebooks as a basis for the reviewer's summary of Coleridge's life, the only official review of Coleridge's notebooks is a Westminster review of them published in 1896. This essay by Clarence Waterer is the first signed review in these five journals. A Colerid that in to the i the not years p ' but now who pro] t‘ believe: Suggest: N< Until a appeare< M) any 0f t the read is also the Perri reViewer giVen in NatErer if they 1E December 2C W 255. After H.N. Coleridge published the Literary Remains in 1837. Coleridge's notebooks disappeared from public notice so completely that in 1877-Edmund venables made a brief inquiry in the Athenaeum as ' Venables says to the whereabouts of these so-called "Fly-Catchersfl the notebooks were sent to Archdeacon Julius Charles Hare twenty-five years previously to determine whether or not they warranted publication, but now these "gems are unknown even to a member of Coleridge's family who probably should be considered the literary executor." Venables believes the notebooks contain a variety of comments ranging from suggestive thought and clear Spiritual insight through racy humour.l No further mention was made of the notebooks in these journals until a review of E.H. Coleridge's book of selections from the notebooks appeared in the Westminster Review in 1896. This book, entitled Aging Poetae, was reviewed by Clarence Waterer in the first signed review in any of these journals. Since E.H. Coleridge published notes that inform the reader about the details of S.T. Coleridge's life, Waterer's review is also organized to recount the events of the poet's life, particularly the period before 1795 when the notes of this collection begin. The reviewer thus attempts to supplement the biography of S.T. Coleridge given in the notebooks. The most praiseworthy quality that Clarence Waterer finds in the notebooks is that Coleridge confides in them as if they were his intimate friends.2 lEdmund Venables, "Coleridge's 'Fly—Catchers,'" Athenaeum, No. 2614, December 1, 1877, p. 699. 2Clarence Waterer, ”The Note Books of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 145, April, 1896, p. 526. I happies - Nether I domesti F opinion E the tri beginni Says Co he was poetic Colerid "Deject the Sad A activit: which i] drug ad. c0nC1udt Variety Children 1 ( w - < % 256. Unlike most critics who believe the.Nether Stowey period was the happiest of Coleridge's life, this critic suggests that the move t0' Nether Stowey might not have been an unmixed good as far as the poet's domestic happiness was concerned.1 Waterer gives no reason for this opinion, and he follows.it with a common critical observation that the trip to Germany was the deathknell of Coleridge as a poet and the beginning of Coleridge as a metaphysician and theologian.2 Waterer says Coleridge confided less to the notebooks during the period when he was friendly with Wordsworth than in later years. Whereas the poetic Coleridge died on the trip to Germany, Waterer concludes that Coleridge's spirit died in Keswick, and this sadness is reflected in "Dejection: An Ode” which Waterer describes as without a doubt one of the saddest poems in English or any other language.3 After 1804 Waterer suggests that Coleridge had less public literary activity and consequently confided more thoughts to his private notebooks which increasingly reflect his moods.4 Waterer suggests that Coleridge's drug addiction began in the 1802—1803 period, although most critics concluded that the addiction began much earlier. Waterer also notes the variety of contents of the notebooks ranging from references to the children to arguments about the nature of evil.5 Coleridge's tendency to lClarence Waterer, "The Note Books of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 145, April, 1896, p. 526. 21bid., p. 527. 3Ibid., p. 528. 4Ibid., p. 529. 51bid., p. 531. quarrel the gr¢ ‘ pettisl Coleri< v drug at WEdioc : nature \ weaknes height were me devoted 'f‘ i that A; it met decideS faculty Colerid Point 0 were in 1 ‘ thEy m0 3 | 257. quarrel eventually with friendslns to be reconciled with the image of the great man of lofty spirit, and the critic suggests that Coleridge's pettishness is overcome by a strong personal fascination that secured Coleridge the true affection of his companions throughout his life.1 Waterer repeats the frequently leveled assertion that Coleridge's drug addiction reached its climax in 1814 with the loss of half the Wedgwood annuity and the failure of the 1813 lectures.2 The private nature of the notebook selections focuses attention on Coleridge's weaknesses, but the critic also sees value in comments written at the height of Coleridge's dispair. Waterer suggests that the 1818 lectures were more of a success than those of 1813 and that after 1818 Coleridge devoted himself to theology. Critics of this era generally concluded that Aid§_§g_Reflection was the best known of Coleridge's works and that it met with considerable success when it was published in 1825. Waterer decides that Coleridge's mind diSplays "the astonishing and unrelaxing faculty of self—introspection, analysis, and original thought." Therefore, Coleridge found nothing so insignificant that it did not offer him some 3 Whereas the notebooks point on which to hang a philosophical idea. were intended to describe "a poet in the making" Waterer suggests that they more apty could be considered an example of a poet in the undoing. It cannot be denied that the poetic genius of Coleridge owes not a little of its fascination to that tendency which lClarence Waterer, "The Note Books of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 145, April, 1896, p. 536. 21bid., p. 536. 31bid., p. 537. 1 Eggigg E.H. Cc Colerid his con Campbel discove Was ret L that Co C0mment finding P0ssib1 theme 1 could s Colerid Politic 258. led him so far in the paths of metaphysics and theology; but his poetic career was as a meteor that marks its brilliant course through our denser.atmosphere, gaini g brilliancy from the source that causes its extinction. In spite of this notice of the notebooks in the westminster Review and in the Edinburgh Review, which reviewed Aging Poetae with E.H. Coleridge's edition of the letters, C.A. Ward writes to the ‘Athenaeum that his discovery of two volumes of Coleridge's notes for Coleridge's maggum gpgg aroused so little notice that Ward expresses his concern at the apathy of Coleridge scholars. Although Dykes Campbell wrote him a brief note and Dr. Murray of Oxford announced the discovery to an assembly of scholars, Ward reports that the manuscript was returned without even a note.2 Lucy Watson replies that she knew from her father, James Gillman, that Coleridge had dictated long hours to Joseph Green, and she mentions comments by Dykes Campbell and E.H. Coleridge to indicate that Ward's findings had not been ignored.3 ‘Ward later announces that he has a possible publisher for the notes. Because Ward believes Coleridge's theme is to harmonize thought and matter, he suggests that the book could suitably be issued as a supplement to Table Iglg and he believes Coleridge's ideas about how to acquire knowledge and how to solve political and social problems would be relevant to provide suggestions lClarence Waterer, "The Note Books of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 145, April, 1896, p. 538. 2C.A. Ward, "Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3548, October 26, 1895, p. 571. 3Lucy E. Watson, "Coleridge,” Athenaeum, No. 3552, November 23, 1895, p. 719. for so philos labore notion actual books; led cn views. when C( critic life we time. I POWers Celeric continL Only bI EditiOD 1 p. 149. 2 POSSESS 1897, p 259. for solving current political and social problems in England. When W. Hale White's edition of Coleridge's notebooks on philosophy was published in 1897, a reviewer notes that Coleridge labored under some "astonishing misconceptions" in his philosophical notions, appalling blunders like attributing to Descartes what 2 actually stems from Hobbes. Thus the comments on Coleridge's note- books and previously unpublished fragments of his maggum 922g finally led critics away from Coleridge's biography and to his philosophical views. This criticism of his philosophy is nearly as severe as it was when Coleridge's prose was first published. In 1897 the Athenaeum critic attacks Coleridge's mistaken philosophical notions just as his life was attacked when Coleridge's prose was reviewed during his life- time. C. New Editions of Coleridge's Prose and Marginalia l. Prose At the same time that critics praise Coleridge's conversational powers in articles that summarize his biography, three new editions of Coleridge's Table Talk published in 1885, 1895, and 1899 also Suggest continuing interest in Coleridge's oral comments although the books are only briefly noticed in the Athenaeum. The reviewer of Thomas Ashe's edition of Coleridge's Table Talk decides that although Ashe did not lC.A. Ward, "Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3562, February 1, 1896, p. 149. 2"A Description of the Wordsworth and Coleridge M83. in the Possession of Mr. T. Norton Longman,” Athenaeum, No. 3636, July 3, 1897, p. 32. enlarg: need r1 everym 1895 E! passag accuse: Princi] too 111 neithe1 Sara's Coleri( critic "obsoh sort" ‘ Period had to 1 margin, and One 1870, , With a 19) l& 260. enlarge the index sufficiently, and some of H.N. Coleridge's notes need revising, the book still is well worth a place on the shelves of everyone who reads for something besides amusement.l W.H. Dircks' 1895 edition of Table Talk is praised for a judicious selection of passages from the Biographia and for his preface, except when Dircks accuses Coleridge of having "gone astray in interpreting Wordsworth's principles of poetical diction through taking the words of the preface too literally.” Dircks' editing is also censured because he followed neither Coleridge's 1817 edition of the Biographia nor his daughter Sara's 1847 edition.2 In 1899 the Athenaeum reviewer declares that Coleridge says a great many "wild things," and is seldom dull; but the critic believes the book would be better if the specimens of Coleridge's "obsolete philosophy which are bottled moonshine of an uninteresting sort" were omitted.3 Except for this comment, critics during this period tended to be more interested in the editing than in what Coleridge had to say. 2. Marginalia Although James Gillman contributed a selection of Coleridge's marginalia to Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine during Coleridge's lifetime and one new discovery of marginalia was printed in the Athenaeum before 1870, critical interest in Coleridge's marginalia extended after 1870 1"Our Library Table," Athenaeum, No. 2984, January 3, 1885, p. 13. 2"Passages from the Prose and Table Talk of Coleridge. Edited with a Prefatory Note by W.B. Dircks," Athenaeum, No. 3508, January 19, 1895, p. 76. 3"Coleridge's Table Talk," Athenaeum, No. 3715, January 7, 1899, p. 18. as cri writin; books. 1% : collec1 E The CO] recoun1 discov< copy 03 by Thor cOIIlmenl natura.‘ Purcha COpious C01eri< Co M “'0 ye; V0lumes bOOks V | p. 422. r ( 27573 I 261. as critics.attempted to collect all of the fragments of Coleridge's writings and the British Museum purchased Joseph Green's collection of books. As Coleridge's literary executor Green possessed an extensive collection of annotated volumes, especiily of philosophical works. The contents of these sixty books with marginalia by Coleridge were recounted in the.Athenaeum and Blackwood's, and several individual discoveries of marginalia were also reported in the Athenaeum. In 1875 the Athenaeum reprints Coleridge's remarks found in a c0py of Stillingfleet's Origines Cascrae or.A Rational Account 9f The book, which had been owned by Thomas Poole, was purchased by the British Museum. The critic comments only that the Darwin whom Coleridge speaks of refers to the naturalist's grandfather, Erasmus.2 In 1880 the Athenaeum reports on Joseph Green's books which were purchased by the British Museum. The collection includes Coleridge's copious notes in Theobald's eight volume edition of Shakespeare, Coleridge's penciled epitaph inscribed in a copy of Nehemiah Grew's Cosmologia gaggg, as well as numerous books of German philosophy. Two years later Blackwood'§_reports further information on these Sixty volumes and also repeats DeQuincey's comment that Coleridge enriches books whereas other people just scribble in the margins. 1"Notes on Stillingfleet," Athenaeum, No. 2474, January 27, 1875, p. 422. 21bid., p. 423. 3"The Coleridge Books in Prof. Green's Library,” Athenaeum, No. 2757, August 28, 1880, p. 274. of mar when h metaph to cha were n Coleri views such p] deciph¢ fragme1 neatly A sele‘ COlern interes Commem And sor tem; iI eXplam commEm Volume 262. The Blackwood's critic concludes that the sixty volume collection of marginalia can be assigned to the last decade of Coleridge's life when he devoted himself almost exclusively to philosophy, theology, and metaphysics. The reviewer also notes that Coleridge's views continued to change even after he reached the age of sixty. Because the notes were not intended for publication, the critic suggests that they reflect Coleridge's natural thought processes as he constantly changes his views and argues varioussides of questions. Besides Coleridge's mental processes, the critic comments on Such physical problems of the marginalia as notes that cannot be deciphered because Coleridge often wrote in pencil or because of missing fragments resulting from the zeal of a conscientious book binder, who neatly trimmed the edges of the books and cut off parts of the notes. A selection of the notes is also printed, but the critic suggests that Coleridge's notes on the philosophers, eSpecially Kant, are the most Few of these are printed because the critic believes the l interesting. comments are too strictly philosophical to be of general interest. And some of the marginalia are not printed because they require the text in order to be understood; therefore, the reviewer quotes self— explanatory marginalia. The Blackwood's critic notes a variety of Coleridge's marginal comments. For example, he expresses surprise that Coleridge is not l"Coleridge Marginalia. Hitherto Unpublished,” Blackwood's, Volume 131 January, 1882, p. 116. more 3 that C increa natura author Steffe' and fa disagr ten ye margin and in and a in E these ; With 3 and P1 reflec Whom h' and arl ladies 131, J. 4 263. more sympathetic with Herder's eclectic ideas, and the critic contends that Coleridgecbstroys Herder and praises Kant although Coleridge increasingly opposes some of Kant's successors, particularly the naturalists. The critic suggests that Coleridge often attacks the authors for vague language in an equally nebulous tone. In Henrich Steffens' writing, Coleridge objects to his vagueness, warmongering, and false religious pretensions.2 0n Fichte's writing, Coleridge first disagrees with Fichte's religious views and then contradicts himself ten years later to declare that Fichte is right. In various other marginal comments Coleridge attacks the French, praises the Germans and includes some humorous comments on the books as well as two epitaphs and a tentative proposal for the philosophical organization of thought in Thg Friend.4 As he summarizes the contents of the marginalia in these sixty books,the Blackwood's critic concludes that Coleridge agrees with Schlegel that the world is divided in viewpoint between Aristotle and Plato.5 And the critic further points out that Coleridge's marginalia reflect steadily decreasing patience with the post—Kantian philosophers whom he accuses of "sinking back rapidly into miscellany, and superfluent, and arbitrary [sic] ——in short, into the style of oratorical lectures to ladies and grown—up gentlemen who have no time for reading." l"Coleridge Marginalia. Hitherto Unpublished," Blackwood's, Volume 131, January, 1882, p. 117. 2Ibid., pp. 118-119. 31bid., pp. 121-122. 4 . Ibid., p. 121. 51bid., p. 122. 6;p;g., p. 124. J. Dyk in the transl to mak that r tO-Not 0n the Campbe freque ] margina m Verse 1 the pre Stan2a as his 1 April 2 2. Grew ' S 3 Jahnls 23, 188 4 SK Septemb( 264. Besides this major Blackwood's review of Coleridge marginalia, J. Dykes Campbell describes some of this marginalia at various times in the Athenaeum. Campbell notes Coleridge's comments on Cary's translation of Dante and observes that Coleridge's support contributed to making Cary's translation almost a classic in English.1 Campbell also publishes marginalia in Grew's Cosmologia §§g£g that reflect Coleridge's fascination with Grew's statements on "Next— to—Nothingness" although Campbell makes no evaluation of the marginalia.2 0n the basis of marginalia in Jahn's Histogy 9f_£h§ Hebrew Commonwealth Campbell suggests that Jahn‘s Histogy was probably the main source of frequent illustrations in Coleridge's 1830 publication of 92 Eh; Five years later H.S. Young reports the discovery of Coleridge's marginalia in a copy of Certain Learned §§Q_Elegant ngkg 2£.EEE.§EEEE Honorable gpggg, ngd Brooke.4 Young notes Coleridge's comments on verse form and a sonnet. The following week Dykes Campbell reports on the previous publication of the sonnet and notes Coleridge's use of a stanza by Lord Brooke which Coleridge adapted as a motto for the 1817 Lgy Sermon and the 1825 Aig§_gg Reflection without crediting Lord Brooke as his source.5 lJ. Dykes Campbell, "The 'London Magazine,'" Athenaeum, No. 3104, April 23, 1887, p. 546. 2J. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge Marginalia Hitherto Unpublished on Grew's 'Cosmologia Sacra,'" Athenaeum, No. 3154, April 7, 1888, p. 435. 3J. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge Marginalia Hitherto Unpublished on Jahn's 'History of the Hebrew Commonwealth,'" Athenaeum, No. 3165, June 23, 1888, p. 796. 4H.S. Young, "Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3436, September 2, 1893, p. 322. SJ. Dykes Campbell "Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3437 September 9, 1893, p. 356. “““"“‘ margin: Whereas often w Said, W of Spin Suggest White c Continu theolog abandon A POEtry ‘ JOSeph I find ma: 1 w 2. 3] May 22, 265. In December, 1896, an Athenaeum essay summarizes Coleridge's marginalia in Southey's copy of Carl Friedricthlogel's Geschichte‘ gg£_komischen Litteratur.l The marginalia had been found in Copenhagen and purchased by Buxton Forman. The critic particularly notes that the book had been carefully bound to preserve the marginalia, probably though Southey's appreciation of its value.2 Another carefully rebound volume of Raleigh's Histogy gf_the World is reported the same year.3 Whereas critics like Dykes Campbell and other Athenaeum contributors often were more interested in the binding than in what the marginalia said, W.Ha1e White is more critical of Coleridge's marginalia in a copy of Spinoza's works found in the library of Manchester College. White suggests that Coleridge admired but did not understand Spinoza. However, White concludes that the marginalia are a good example ”of Coleridge's continual struggle to make believe that the conclusions of his later theology were those of his earlier metaphysics, which he never could abandon."4 Although the effort to recover various fragments of Coleridge's poetry and prose was underway before 1870, certainly the purchase of Joseph Green's library by the British Museum stimulated the effort to find marginalia in widely dispersed books. However, the focus of 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Notes on Comic Literature: A Find,” Athenaeum, No. 3609, December 26, 1896, p. 906. 21bid., p. 907. 3Lavern Mathewson, "Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Notes on Comic Literature: A Find," Athenaeum, No. 3612, January 16, 1897, p. 86. 4W. Hale White, "Coleridge on Spinoza," Athenaeum, No. 3630, May 22, 1897, p. 680. critic condit was C0 his li: metaphj m critic; account that tl during Prose, selecti first c Allele; of COle the eVe ing thi reView 266. critical interest was on collecting the marginalia, determining.its: condition, and describing the contents. Not much of the discussion was concerned with evaluation of the marginalia as literary criticism. Part Three The Critical Reception gf_Biographies g: S.T. Coleridge 1870-3;; 1902 Coleridge's life was a source of great interest to critics during his lifetime because they wondered why Coleridge turned from poetry to metaphysics and because of his own recounting of events in the Biographia Literaria. This interest was followed after his death by further ‘ critical evaluation of various recollections of Coleridge and then of accounts of relationships among the poets. It is not surprisng, then, that this interest culminated in a series of biographies of Coleridge during the 1880s and 18905. As was mentioned in connection with Coleridge's prose, this biographical influence determined the organization and selection of editions of letters and notebooks by E.H. Coleridge. The first critical biography of Coleridge is an 1871 essay in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine that serves mainly to recount the previous recollections of Coleridge's life and to point out the areas of little knowledge of the events of his life that suggest a need for a full biography. Follow— ing this, in 1885 the Edinburgh Review published an extensive critical review of Coleridge's life and work based on a biography by H.D. Traill. Tho ye on sev Campbel was pu] ‘ to sur its vie Coleri< l ‘ life be book it life, t individ or some include of his 1 the COm of Cole and eye emDhasi B 1870 an Lamb re. Elatio] 267. TWO years later the Quarterly Review published a similar effort based on several biographies. The Westminster Review waited until J. Dykes Campbell's edition of Coleridge's works with a biographical introduction was published in 1893, followed by Campbell's lgfg_9f_Coleridge in 1894, to survey Coleridge's life and letters. And the Edinburgh Review brought ' its views of Coleridge's life and work up to date in its review of Coleridge's letters in 1896. This essay includes a survey of Coleridge's life based on the editions of the leuers, notebooks, and Lucy Watson's book 1hg_Gillmans gf_Highgate. Besides these major essays on Coleridge's life, the Athenaeum published brief notices of these books and occasional individual essays about isolated discoveries concerning Coleridge's life or some aspect of his work. Whereas the comments on Coleridge's life included in the section on his prose are organized around the discussion of his life as it is expressed in Such prose as his letters and notebooks, the comments in these essays are a general recounting of the major events of Coleridge's life althOugh some of the same aspects of Coleridge's works and events of his life are included in both sections depending on the emphasis of the essays. Besides the biographies of Coleridge that were criticized between 1870 and 1902, biographies of other authors, particularly that of Charles Lamb reviewed in 1900, also generated further critical commentary on the 1 relationships among Coleridge, Wordsworth, Southey, and Lamb. l"Charles Lamb," Quarterly Review, Volume '192, October, 1900, p. 312. the cr the 1m Brandl L well a: ) Brandl i l Colerid Sympath thought » r l r l to reSp CorresP Critic . b°d§ mo PTOVide; Colerid} an accu ll COlErldz l 1887, p‘ 2. 3 w 268. Most of the biographies occasioned biographical essays in which the critic gives his own interpretation of Coleridge's life based on the longer accounts. However, the biography by a German critic.Alois Brandl generated various criticisms of Brandl's biographical.study as well as of Coleridge's life in three essays that refer specifically to Brandl in the Quarterly, Blackwood's, and the Amhenaeum, all in 1887. The Quarterly reviewer suggests that Brandl writes about Coleridge with justification because Coleridge's mind had a natural sympathy with some aspects of German thought, although he increasingly thought more like his own countrymen as he advanced in life.1 And the Blackwood's critic suggests that it is quite natural for the Germans to respond to Coleridge's interest in their philosoPhers with a corresponding interest in him.2 These two reviewers and the Athenaeum critic note numerous errors of language and subject matter in Brandl's bods more errors than can be bhmed on a translator. The Athenaeum provides a close textual study of Brandl's work and concludes that even Coleridge's own Words weretranslated from the German rather than using an accurate English text.3 The Athenaeum critic believes Brandl's primary contribution to Coleridge scholarship was the letters that establish that Coleridge's 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 60. 2"The Old Saloon," Blackwood's, Volume 142, August, 1887, p. 247. 3"Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the English Romantic School," Athenaeum, No. 3112, July 18, 1887, p. 791. family 1 i 1 | Brandl suggesl inaccul critic with Cc his men differs POEts E Stateme Sketch; l transce Critic of mind to trac 0n his of the of not because century 1 w 2 269. family bought his way out of the army. However, the reviewer accuses Brandl of affixing imaginary dates to Coleridge's writing, and he suggests that Brandl says little that is new but only repeats the inaccurate story of Coleridge's life that continues to develop. The critic suggests that mythical elements of Coleridge's biography began with Coleridge's tendency to use his power of imagination to revise his memory of events from his past. Coleridge's account of events differs with those of his acquaintances, and Brandl first notes that poets are unsatisfactory autobiographers and then uses Coleridge's statements when they suit his purpose. The critic also notes Brandl's sketchy acknowledgement of sources.1 The Blackwood's critic notes Brandl's theory that Coleridge's transcendentalism was germinated by his absent—minded father, but the critic doubts that Coleridge drew "homely and unconventional habits" of mind from his mother. Nor does the reviewer find Brandl's efforts to trace the effects of Coleridge's study of Milton, Gray, and Thomson on his poems convincing. The reviewer suggests that Brandl's treatment of the Nether Stowey period is too idyllic, and Brandl is also accused of not seeing the contributions of the other lake poets to Coleridge because Brandl is more at home discussing the seventeenth and eighteenth century poetic predecessors of the Lake School.2 But the critics of 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the English Romantic School," Athenaeum, No. 3112, July 18, 1887, p. 792—793. 2"The Old Saloon,” Blackwood's, Volume 142, August, 1887, p. 250. all H in sp: of Al< simile survey that ( Occupe divisi major his me segmep Strict three journa at his dis Qus its no abseuc theory lived return 1887, 270. all three journals conclude that Brandl's effort has critical value in Spite of the errors in his book. Although these three essays printed in 1887 have their critiques of Alois Brandl in common, the 1885 Edinburgh.Review essay is more similar to the 1887 Quarterly Review essay in its organization of the survey of Coleridge's life. These two essayists share a common belief that Coleridge could have been a successful journalist, their pre- occupation with his financial condition and drug addiction, and their division of biographical information into a first section relating the major aspects of Coleridge's life and work and a second section describing his mental development. They also have similar major groupings of segments of Coleridge's life, although the Edinburgh Review critic more strictly follows H.D. Traill's divisions of Coleridge's life into the three periods of his career as a poet ending in 1799, as a critic and journalist ending in 1816, and as a philosoPher and theologian ending at his death in 1834. And the Quarterly reviewer organizes his discussion around the thesis that Coleridge has "a character which, with its moods, follies, and virtues, admits of but one solution——the total absence of common sense."1 The critic supports this opinion with the theory that Coleridge knew nothing of family life as a boy because he lived at Christ's Hospital from the age of eight to sixteen without returning home. In his description of Coleridge's character the 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 65. revie‘ moral belie' belie of pu: recogx after "trier In 182 descrl‘ story 1887, Taler 1887, 271. reviewer charges the poet with lack of ambition, meaning lack of moral strength, during this period. In spite of this the critic believes Coleridge retained a religious Spirit.: Mbreover, the critic believes Coleridge's ill health contributed more to his instability‘ of purpose and his drug addiction than critics had previously recognized. More complete biographical information about Coleridge is apparent after the Blackwood's essay of 1871 in which the critic notes that the "friends" who obtained Coleridge's release from the army were unknown.2 In 1887 the Quarterly reviewer quotes letters from the family that describe how they bought his release. Various details of Coleridge's life are used by these critics to substantiate the general belief that Coleridge was an impractical visionary. The Edinburgh reviewer notes Coleridge's torn gown at College and the gun that was known by its rust when he was in the army.4 And DeQuincey's description of Coleridge's walking from.one side of the path to the other is repeated to show Coleridge's irregular character. The Blackwood's critic illustrates Coleridge's impractical nature with the story that he married Sara Fricker when his only source of income was 8 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1 87, p. 66. 2"A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV.——Samue1 Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 558. 3"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 68. 4"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 310. Josepl also I And t1 name < the y( of the revels But t} Dykes Coleri of a I When I finanl eXampJ and S( and Q ambit: ColEr: Poems 272. Joseph Cottle's offer to pay for hispoems.l The Edinburgh reviewer also notes that Coleridge was willing to accept Cottle's charity.2 And the Quarterly reviewer praises Cottle as a young publisher "whose name deserves all honour as a kind friend, and first encourager of the young man's poetical powers."3 This attitude contrasts with that of the earlier critics who objected to Cottle.because oflis improper revelations about Coleridge in his Recollections gf‘gygy Coleridge. But this.attitude is again suggested in the Athenaeum review of J. Dykes Campbell's gigglgf Coleridge in 1899. This reviewer notes Coleridge's somewhat contemptuous directions to.Cottle for the publication of a book, and Dykes Campbell's suggestion that Cottle got his revenge when he wrote his Recollections.4 The critics generally agreed that Coleridge could have been financially independent if he had taken advantage of his talents. For example, the Edinburgh reviewer contends that the lectures Coleridge and Southey gave in Bristol before they were married were profitable, and Coleridge could have secured independence at this time if he had had ambition. And this reviewer seconds H.D. Traill's opinion that Coleridge was a "born journalist" who could have earned a living by 1"A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV.——Samue1 Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's, Volume 110, November, 1871, p. 576. 2"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 310. 3"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 69. 4"A Facsimile Reproduction of the Proofs and M88. of Some of the Poems of Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3746, August 12, 1899, p. 214. writin Qggggg ! Mo_mi_n l we. ‘ that C pounds K could ' Althou critic if he life, of his a SUCC DECaus Coleri Centri Charit for w} 273. writing prose such as the Essays gp_§;§ Q E Tigg§.l Similarly, the Quarterly reviewer regards the period when Coleridge wrote for the Morning Egg; as the most productive period of his lifetime. The Quarterly critic regards.it as an "irrational perversity of his nature" that Coleridge declined a partnership in the Evening Pg§£_worth 200 pounds a year. The reviewer thinks it incomprehensible that Coleridge could continue "the lazy reading of old folios" and stay in the country. Although Coleridge said an income of 350 pounds or more is evil, the critic suggests that Coleridge could have handled the responsibility if he had earned that much.2 The Edinburgh reviewer also notes that the last period of Coleridge's life, after 1816, was the most prolific writing and publishing period of his life; but Coleridge's finances remained in jeopardy in Spite of a successful series of lectures in 1818 and all of these publications because of the failure of his publisher‘s business in 1820. Then Coleridge was again forced to write commercially, and he became a contributor to Blackwood's Magazine.3 Besides Coleridge's visionary nature and willingness to accept charity when he was capable of earning his own living, the critics account for what they consider Coleridge's lack of success in the matters of 1"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 328. 2 "Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 70. 3"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.--Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 334. everyd gygggg establ The pg one of refere Josiah operat German of net t0 er Coleri SenSat develc Pleasr after Jflma 1887, 274. 1 everyday life on the basis of his opium addiction. The Edinburgh and Quarterly critics agree that Coleridge's addiction to opium was firmly established after 1800 although he had taken the drug before that time. The Edinburgh Review critic declares that "Kubla Khan" much resembles one of DeQuincey's opium dreams. Furthermore, the critic cites references to Coleridge's taking opium in Germany and a letter to Josiah Wedgwood written in 1800 because Coleridge mentions the "pleasurable operations of a dose of opium."1 The Edinburgh and Quarterly critics agree that as the trip to Germany in 1799 marked Coleridge's turning away from poetry to a Study of metaphysics, so the trip to Malta marked Coleridge's final surrender to drugs. Critics argued to the end of the century over whether Coleridge started to take drugs because of illness or to seek pleaSurable sensations.2 But the Quarterly reviewer contends that whether Coleridge developed the habit from a need to alleviate pain or an effort to seek pleasure, his lack of moderation caused Coleridge to develop the habit after 1800 until his nerves shook and he had horrible dreams.3 The Edinburgh critic says loneliness and burdensome work caused Coleridge's final surrender while he was on Malta. The Quarterly critic does not offer such a rationale, but he decides that Coleridge's redeeming feature was that he knew himself to be in the wrong. l"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.—-Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 325. 2R.P. Graves, "Coleridge's Opium—Eating," Athenaeum, No. 3143, January 21, 1888, p. 85. 3"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 70. that < of y for a and i] physit sough1 The Q addict howeve Chara. to be but (1. in te contr lacke hilmor To ju 111th andi 1887, 275. The Quarterly critic feels that the same lack of common sense that caused Coleridge to use drugs to.excess also caused the failure of Th; Friend and lhg_Watchman. "Coleridge at this time had no remedy for a false step, except a worse step." The critic denies that misery and ill health continued Coleridge in his addiction to drugs and meta— physics. Because he lacked the will power to control himself, he sought external control and went to live with the Morgans in 1810.1 The Edinburgh critic repeats the story that Coleridge did conquer his addiction while he lived with James Gillman. Both critics attempt, however, to establish a moral relationship between Coleridge's personal character and his writing. The Quarterly reviewer can account for Coleridge's willingness to be supported by friends because of his own lack of concern for money, but Coleridge's apparent lack of gratitude is difficult to defend except in terms of the drug addiction. The critic suggests that all men are contradictions, but Coleridge's genius was of such a pure kind that it lacked the usual mixture with other qualities such as common sense or humor. Consequently, Coleridge's nature had more contradictions.2 To justify Coleridge's habit of announcing works that he never started, much less completed, the critic declares that Coleridge was as grand and incomplete as his plans.3 Therefore, the critic recommends that 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 71. 21bi§,, p. 94. 3rbla., p. 73. Coler man; The g! Coler Egléflu that! at til drugs 00ntel depths In the indolg his at C0nsi< I | I I and p; 1887, 276. Coleridge be judged by what he was, a pure minded and loving hearted man; and that we Should not be misled by his supszrficial flaws. Coleridge's faultse-open as the day-ewere negative, however grave. He erred by what he left undone, rather than by what he did. But his virtues were positive, and of a beautiful and rare order. He lived a harrassed, dis— appointed, and unsatisfied life, grasping at ideasend neglecting substances, banished by his own faults from home and family, and conscious in occasional bursts of pathetic self-condemnation of the difference between what he was, and what he might have been. But he was pure in thought, word, and deed. Not a word did he ever write or say that the most modest woman might not hear or read. The Quarterly essayist concludes, then, that the worst to be said about Coleridge is that he was a slave to his own genius.2 Similarly, the Edinburgh critic describes Cbleridge as a genius, but he concludes that Coleridge was indolent even though he was capable of tireless labor at times and finally had the will to free himself from the slavery to drugs. Thus, the Edinburgh critic describes Coleridge as both contemptible and impressive in different ways. "Though he sank to depths of moral degradation, he also rose to heights of inspiration."3 In the second half of this essay, instead of berating Coleridge for indolence, the critic concludes that while Coleridge's plans exceeded his achievements, the amount of his completed work was still very considerable, and Coleridge‘s reputation was built partly on performance and partly on capacity. 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 95. 21bid., p. 96. 3"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.—-Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 351. overt metap and t into the g 277. His contributions to journalism were of first—rate importance; to criticism he gave new impulse and direction; he wrote poetry which in.its peculiar charm remains unsurpassed; in philosophy he stemmed the tide of sensationalism; in religion he opened up new paths of spiritual access. It is in these last two directions that his influence has been most discussed. With regard to these influences, both essays survey aspects of Coleridge's moral, theological, metaphysical, and philosophical views as they varied before andafter the French Revolution. Both the Edinburgh and Quarterly critics note the influence of Plato and Plotinus on Coleridge before Hartley, Berkeley, Priestley, Kant, and Schelling. The Edinburgh reviewer adds Hume, Spinoza, and Descartes to his list and gives Coleridge a primary position as a leader in the movement to overthrow the theories of Locke and Hume.2 In his preoccupation with metaphysics, Coleridge studied the associationists Hartley and Priestley, and then the Edinburgh critic says he returned to mystics like Boehme and Law after the French Revolution first changed his beliefs and caused him to adept a practical point of view. In this return to mysticism, the critic contends that Coleridge returned to an attitude like his Ne0platonism of the Christ's HOSpital years.3 The Quarterly reviewer feels that Coleridge was first converted into a violent democrat and then into a firm conservative in reSponse to the events of the French Revolution. Basing his argument on Brandl's l"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.-—Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 350. 2Ibid., p. 336. 31bid., p. 337. __—__ accouni Coleri: school class . world v philant such a ridicul I I The Egg French Practic The cri as the Princip Colerid critic Locke a eSsenti and Spi not dec 1 1887’ p 278. account, the critic notes that the revolutionary attitude affected Coleridge and Wordsworth and caused the development of a romantic school of poetry in English literature that praises the rising middle class. Brandl points out that only a democratic era in which the world was ringing with revolutionary watchwords of a universal philanthropy could cause a young poet to publicly venture to address such a lowly animal as an ass in the manner of Coleridge's much ridiculed poem "To a Young Ass, its mother being tethered near it." Innocent foal! thou poor despised, forlorn! l I hail thee Brother——spite of the fool's scorn! The Edinburgh reviewer notes that in reSponse to changing events in the French Revolution, Coleridge first turned from metaphysics to more practical interests such as politics, pantisocracy, marriage, and poetry. The critic relates the changes in Coleridge's political views, as well as the changes in his religious views, to his quest for the underlying The Edinburgh critic concludes that The principles of human existence. Coleridge defended old institutions with new lines of thought. critic declares that Coleridge turned away from the sensationalists, Locke and Hartley, because he "was repelled by his firm conviction of the essential distinction between men and brutes, persons and things, natural and Spiritual action!‘ He felt that the human mind contained some element not decomposable in their analysis. 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 63. 2"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.—-Coleridge,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 337. the F! as his quarte was th review outcou reflec 3§§l§£ obserx of hUI This ( a tea Power sense agree as th ThEy 1887, 279. The Edinburgh reviewer credits the turn of political events in the French Revolution with changing Coleridge's religious views as well as his political views to a shift away from Unitarianism. Both quarterly reviewers believe éig§_gg_Reflection, published in 1825, was the culmination of Coleridge's religious views. The Quarterly reviewer contends, however, that although Aid§_tg_Reflection is the outcome of Coleridge's study of various schools of influence, it least reflects other opinions in his works. This critic notes that Aid 53 Reflection was popular particularly because Coleridge's tenets and observations support the view that the Christian faith is the perfection of human intelligence, tenets that represent the Church of England. This critic seconds Brandl in contending that this pOpularity was not a reaction to 1h§_Friend because this earlier work lacked the persuasive power of Coleridge's writing, and Coleridge lacked the ability and common sense to guage his readers.2 In spite of this, Brandl and the reviewer agree that The Friend at least discussed some contemporary topics such . 3 as the slave trade, taxation, suffrage, "and even suffrage for women." As these twoquarterly critics agree on so many other issues, they also agree that Coleridge's conversation was better than his writing. They reach the same conclusion, the conclusion earlier critics had reached, 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 93. 21bid., p. 91. 31bid., p. 92. —. probal Coleri CODVEI and lb The e often repea been 3180‘ of dr of mo concl exhib Super lEQtL Prive of p: that Shakt 280. probably because their.assessments.were based on the.recounting of H.N. Coleridge and.others who wrote their recollections of Coleridge's conversations after his death. The Quarterly Review critic notes the reports of Lamb, Cottle and Madame de.Stall that Coleridge was a conversational spellbinder. The critic also repeats their criticisms that Coleridge's oratory was often difficult to follow because of its windings, doublings and repeatings.l And the Edinburgh reviewer suggests that Coleridge had been too rarely in active life to be a conversationalist. This critic also mentions Coleridge's disorganized conversational style, his lack of dramatic power, and the fact that Coleridge's voice lacked variety of modulation and degenerated into sing-song. However, the critic concludes that Coleridge's conversation provided a matchless intellectual exhibition.2 As the two reviewers praise Coleridge's conversation as being superior to his prose but with various faults, they conclude that the lectures given in public were inferior to Coleridge's spontaneous private conversations. Both critics defend Coleridge against charges of plagiarism from the Germans and praise Coleridge's literary criticism, that of Wordsworth's poetry in the Biographia Literaria more than the ShakeSpeare criticism, althogh the continuing interest in Coleridge's 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 77. 2"English MEn of Letters, edited by John Morley.-—Coleridge,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 313. lectu the 1 Coler 1807 the k bette he Sp Parad and d Shake denun Prais ands 281. lectures is reflected in these critics' views and in notations about the lectures in the Athenaeum. The Quarterly critic notes the.occasions of Coleridge's lectures and the failures of the courses given in 1795 and 1807 because of Coleridge's illness and lack of punctuality and preparation. Coleridge's 1807 lectures are described as wretchedly spoken and illustrated without the kind of intellectual glow for which is conversations were famOus. The critic indicates that the series of lectures given in 1818 were better prepared, but Coleridge was usually more favorably received when he Spoke spontaneously, in the manner of his more intimate conversations. The Edinburgh critic notes that Coleridge's lectures were often paradoxical or obscure, marred by repetitions, interrupted by digressions, and dealt with every tOpic except the one announced. Of Coleidge's Shakespeare criticism the critic notes that Coleridge's mind worked from details to general principles. The reviewer repeats the usual critical denunciation of Coladdge's emmendations, but he is unusual in that he praises Coleridge's characterization of Hamlet rather than of Othello and suggests an autobiographical identification between Coleridge himself and his interpretation of Hamlet.3 As Coleridge promised to act but did not do so, he saw Hamlet in the same role and declared that "action is the great end of all; no intellect, however grand, is valuable if it draws us 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 90. 2"English Men of Letters, edied by John Morley.-—Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 334. 31bid., p. 333. from a and we l only t Campbe only a philos ‘ Campbe provid body c notes notes Philos lectux Shakes is Shc Hamlet lectu] colerj .— 282. from action and leads us to think till the time of action is passed and we can do nothing."1 These critics assumed in 1885 and 1887 that Coleridge had given only the one course of lectures on Shakespeare in 1818, but J. Dykes Campbell subsequently contributed information to the.Athenaeum not only about these Shakespeare lectures but about a series of philosophical lectures that Coleridge gave during the same season. Campbell concludes that H.N. Coleridge's notes in Literagy Remains provide only the skeleton of what he believes to have been the finest body of criticism ever produced by Coleridge. And Campbell adds some notes on the lectures that were taken by a Mr. Henry Holgate Carwarding, notes that had been previously printed by Thomas Ashe or Leigh Hunt. Two other articles report old newspaper accounts of the philOSOphical lectures as well as some comments on the Shakespeare lectures. Campbell describes John Thelwall's account of an 1818 Shakespeare lecture as ”kindly patronizing impudence." And Campbell is shocked at Thelwall's suggestion that Coleridge could have delineated Hamlet's character better if he had borrowed from Hazlitt or "another lecturer" whom Campbell thinks must have meant an earlier lecture by Coleridge himself.4 l"English Men of Letters, edited by John Mbrley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 333—334. 2J. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge's Lectures in 1818," Athenaeum, No. 3203, March 16, 1889, p. 345. ——"Coleridge's Lectures in 1818," Athenaeum, No. 3210, May 4, 1889, p. 568. 3J. Dykes Campbell, "Some Lectures Delivered by Coleridge in the Winter of 1818—1819,” Athenaeum, No. 3348, December 26, 1891, p. 866. 4J. Dykes Campbell, "Some Lectures Delivered by Coleridge in the Winter of 1818—1819,” Athenaeum, No. 3349, January 2, 1892, p. 10. lectu1 perio< discus nggg and t of thl poetr Coler the g POEtr Althc agair new ( PIESE rem marg; Edin \ 283. In spite of Campbell's discovery of a series of philosophical lectures and the effort to uncover Coleridgfs marginalia during this period, when critics referred to Coleridge's literary criticism they discussed the Biographia Literaria, fragments in the Table Talk, Literagy Remains, notes on the lectures on Shakespeare and Milton, and the few comments on literature that were included in publications of the notebooks and letters. The Quarterly reviewer thinks Coleridge's discussion of Wordsworth's poetry is out of place in the Biographia Literaria, but he does praise Coleridge's comments on the rules and conditions of the poetic art. And the Edinburgh reviewer describes Coleridge's analysis of Wordsworth's poetry as a masterpiece of criticism. Other critics judged Wordsworth's original and irregular works of art by mechanical rules applicable only to existing models. But Coleridge, so far as he went, raised criticism to the rank of a science. Descending to the eternal well—springs of poetry, heiiamed canons which Were living not mechanical, fundamental not superficial, rules by which may be tested the uncertain estimates of individual taste. Although Coleridge had set himself the task of vindicating his own opinion against the charge that Wordsworth's poetry was not rhymed prose but a new creation, the Edinburgh critic believes Coleridge still was able to preserve an impartial attitude in his criticism of Wordsworth. This reviewer also notes that Coleridge's critical power is evident in the marginalia and the lectures on Shakespeare. l"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 332. to he: of la impre COIDIIlOl "He h Coler Coler and f adue Other influ attac 18871 /E? a 284. Whereas the Edinburgh critic suggests that Coleridge took criticism to heights beyond Samuel Johnson's discussions of the appropriateness of language, the Quarterly critic says Coleridge's language is too imprecise to illucidate differences without illustrations and exposition. The major problem, this critic believes, was that Coleridge lacked the common sense to maintain contact with the ordinary minds around him. "He had but his own to direct himself by, and that was not a rule but an exception." Finally, this Quarterly reviewer takes issue with Coleridge's distinction between reason and conscience and concludes that Coleridge's distinctions between reason and understanding, imagination and fancy, are the chief offenders in Coleridge's imprecise effort to achieve precise critical language. Besides describing Coleidge's life, lectures, conversations, and other aSpects of his literary efforts, these critics consider Coleridge's influence on his followers. The Edinburgh reviewer describes Coleridge as the intellectual epitome of his time, in the vanguard of both the attack and the defense. He passed over from the philosophy of Locke, Hartley, and Hume to idealism, from the destructive tothe constructive side of politics, from scepticism to spiritual religion. He thus sums up in himself both the present fury and the subsequent effect of the storm. Besides acknowledging Coleridge's influence on fellow poets of the Lake and Cockney Schools as well as on such followers as Sterling, Maurice, 1"Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 165, July, 1887, p. 78. 2"English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.——Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 302. and Cole beli voic beca whil the over COle scho WOrk COnc afte 285. and Cardinal Newman, the Edinburgh critic suggests several reasons why Coleridge's name had.become.obscure. The main reason, this reviewer believes, is that Coleridge's teaching was mainly oral. While his voice was fascinating, his books are unattractive and repell readers because they do not use the ordinary language of the world. Also, while Coleridge's thoughts are suggestive, they are often recorded in the margins of books. And much of Coleridge's work was anticipated or overshadowed by the great German thinkers. But the primary reason why Coleridge's reputation suffered, according to this critic, is that he was independent and refused to Support unreservedly any political party, School of philosophy, or religious sect. He supported his political conclusions with arguments which both sides distrusted: while he tolerated no opinions or institutions merely on the ground of their existence, be wholly excluded the people from government. To him religion and philosophy seemed inextricably connected, but his services were acceptable to neither. His philosophy moved in places too deep and high for the English mind, and he was called a mystic. The principles on which his own devotionalfieelings enabled him to found a Spiritual religion led others into unbelief or destructive scepticism. Never a partisan, he neither awakened uncompromising enthusiasm, nor made his name a rallying point. Thus he founded no school, though he taught the teachers of many.1 In essence then, these critics who evaluate Coleridge's life and work on the basis of a series of biographical Studies draw parallel conclusions with the critics who described Coleridge during and immediately after his lifetime. They conclude that his work and thought were 1"English Men of Letters, edited by John MDrley.-—Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162, July, 1885, p. 303. frag dome in s But that D H- Pr (D m No, ; Angus 286. fragmentary; and his life was obstructed by illness, drugs, and domestic unhappiness. The dimension these critics add to.the survey of Coleridge's life and work is to consider his influence on followers in Spite of the relative obscurity into which his own work was cast. But finally, this criticism by the Edinburgh Review critic suggests that at the end of the century, aszr the beginning, Coleridge's frequent changes of opinion were regarded as a deficiency rather than a sign of an exploring mind. Besides these major essays that describe aSpects of Coleridge's life and work in order to attempt a comprehensive evaluation of both, various essays in the Athenaeum recount other aspects of the continuing effort to uncover more information about Coleridge's life and work. J. Dykes Campbell reports on such varied matters as the attack on Campbell believes was not as offensive as Coleridge contends in the Biographia. Campbell suggests that this shows the illusions Coleridge was capable of cherishing regarding the phases of political and religious 1 Opinions through which he had passed. On another occasion, Campbell cites various examples to show Coleridge's tendency to garble quotations either from a bad memory or in a desire to improve what he quotes. Campbell further notes that Coleridge wrote the letter from "a friend" lJ. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge and the Anti—Jacobins,” Athenaeum, No. 3266, May 31, 1890, p. 704. 2J. Dykes Campbell, "Coleridge's Quotatins," Athenaeum, No. 3382, August 20, 1892, p. 259. at th finis l disco opini Coler Coler incre essay Coler tempe his t Coler we 11 Prais life of ht frail 287. at the end of the first volume of the Biographia to avoid having to finish the explanation of his metaphysical system, as "a pleasant and harmless way of getting out of a bobble."1 And H. Buxton Forman's discovery of an early prospectus for The Watchman elicits Campbell's opinion that Cottle probably forgot his first preface and believed Coleridge actually did print the first Watchman on schedule although Coleridge in his Biographia account says he was not on time with it. Other peripheral comments on Coleridge during this period suggest increasing appreciation of some aspects of his life and work. A Quarterly essay on Thomas Carlyle's Collected Wg£k§_notes that in spite of Coleridge's lack of system in both philOSOphy and appearance, his indolent temper and sickly health, the writing style that hides the excellence of his thoughts, and the fragmentary nature of many of his best sayings, Coleridge still formed a full, broad conception of the world in which we live and our duties in it.3 And an Athenaeum essay on Sara Coleridge praises Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "whose intellect was a wonder, whose life was almost a romantic interest, and whose character with its portion of human weakness and error, is interesting and lovable even in its frailties and its faults."4 In 1893 an essay on the Duke of Argyll's book lJ. Dykes Campbell, "A Sonnet by S.T. Coleridge, A Passage in the 'Biographia Literaria,'" Athenaeum, No. 2949, May 3, 1884, p. 566—567. V" 2J. Dykes Campbell, "The PrOSpectus of Coleridge's 'Watchman, Athenaeum, No. 3450, December 9, 1893, p. 808-809. 3"The Collected Works of Thomas Carlyle," Quarterly Review, Volume 132, April, 1872, p. 187. 4"Sara Coleridge," Athenaeum, N0. 2385, July 12, 1873, p. 39. at th at Ne that wrote that of hi the E criti 1870 288. Th§_Unseen Foundations gf_Society includes the critic's comment that Coleridge was "in our judgment, one of the most considerable thinkers that this country has ever produced."1 Coleridge's increasing reputation as a distinguished poet culminates at the end of the nineteenth century in a movement to have the cottage at Nether Stowey set aside as a memorial. In 1893 the Athenaeum reports that a tablet was placed on the cottage where Coleridge lived when he wrote his major poetry. The critic, identified here as W.G., suggests that Coleridge deserved honor in the Quantock Hills not only because i of his poetry but also because he and Wordsworth became interpreters to the Somersetshire people of the beauties of their own country.2 This critic expresses h0pe that funds will be raised to save the cottage fromruin, and three years later William Greswell again appeals to Athenaeum readers for funds to purchase the cottage as a memorial library.3 The tablet at the cottage is inscribed with a poem by E.H. Coleridge honoring his grandfather and these lines from S.T. Coleridge's letters to Thelwall written in December, 1796. I am not fit for public life; yet the light shall stream to a far distance from the taper in my cottage window. Beginning with the letters published in the Westminster Review in 1870 and the Blackwood's essay on Coleridge's life published in 1871, 1"The Unseen Foundations of Society," Quarterly Review, Volume 176, April, 1893, p. 415. 2"The Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, No. 3425, June 17, 1893, p. 765—766. 3William Greswell, "The Coleridge Cottage at Nether Stowey," Athenaeum, No. 3584, July 4, 1896, p. 413. revie biogl info: towa1 even come] attit They rela abom that kins] diff even beca that lite addi atti Ench liv1 life 289. reviewers of this period reflect a predominant interest in the biographical details of Coleridge's life. In spite of some new information, however, reviewers tended to retain the same attitude toward Coleridge's life and work that was reflected in earlier criticisms, even repeating the same opinions at times. On this basis it.is far to conclude that critics tended to retain the same value standards in their attitude toward Coleridge's life as those reflected during his lifetime. They continued to attempt to defend Coleridge's personal morality in relation to the morality of his works. But the increasing information about his drug addiction and quarrels with his friends made the theory that Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Southey were lofty spirits in friendly kinship increasingly difficult to defend. And critics continued to have difficulty reconciling Coleridge's art and morals withlns drug addiction, even though they were willing to accept the idea that he took drugs because of pain rather than pleasure. They wanted to believe, however, that he triumphed over this addiction in a Show of will that indicates the kind of personal morality that they wanted to find in a man of literary talent. But generally they believed he combined indolence and addiction with fragmentary writing. After 1870 the major difference in attitude toward his addiction was that critics were no longer worrrd so much about offending Coleridge's family because his children were no longer living. Rather, theyvented to assess the effects of the addiction on his life and work, and critics recommended a biography that gave the true facts. Howev writt moral essay defic becau the g in pe again less Woulc unre< Centl COmm Prim inert gefli of f 290. However, the likelihood of such a factual biography actually being written was small because of the continuing desire to see a great and moral man in Coleridge, a man who could triumph over his deficiencies. And critics continued to.regard Coleridge's changes in political and religious views as a kind of deficiency, although the biographical essays of 1885 and 1887 lack the chastisement and implication of deficient moral character that earlier critics attributed to Coleridge because of these changing views. Instead, these later critics, particularly the Edinburgh Review critic of 1885, emphasized that Coleridge's changes in persPective caused a decline in his influence on his followers. Here again a kind of deficiency is implied and a sense that Coleridge used less than his full potential or he would have been more influential; he would have written down his great ideas instead of letting them flow unrecorded in spontaneous conversation. It is fair to conclude then, that critics toward the end of the century increasingly noted Coleridge's importance, particularly as a poet. This is reflected in their selection of Nether Stowey as the memorial to commemorate. Thus, throughout the century Coleridge is regarded as primarily a poet although the other aspects of his life and work received increasing attention as well. But he continues to be recognized as a genius who did less than fulfill his potential and therefore as a source of frustration to critics, who achieve only a partial resolution by drawing a pa: drug- views be re fulfj nine1 291. a parallel between his fragmentary and unfinished works and unhappy, drug—ridden life as these are reflected in his constantly changing views and quarrels with family and friends. Coleridge finally must be regarded as a great but fragmentary genius who only partially fulfilled critical requirements and expectations of genius in the nineteenth century. in fi cone] criti this that thrm the exem less Work soci Cole and to: CONCLUSION On the basis of this survey of S.T. Coleridge's critical reception in five major nineteenth century journals, it would be pleasant to conclude that Coleridge received increasing positive evaluation and critical understanding of his poetry, prose, and biography. However, this would be a grave oversimplification of the various critical trends that have been noted in this study. Some major themes dominated critical interest at various times throughout the century. First of all, critics at the beginning of the century attempted to maintain the distinctive political stance exemplified by the individual journals, but this tendency steadily lessened. Nonetheless, critics continued to evaluate the lives and works of authors like Coleridge on the basis of their contribution to the improvement of culture in the individual readers and the society. From the beginningto the end of the century, critics discussed Coleridge's biography as a basis for their evaluations of his poetry and prose. And Coleridge's own description of himself might well serve to suggest a prevalent concept among the critics. ——So I became a drggmggf—and acquired an indisposition to all bodily activity——and I was fretful, and inordinately passionate, and as I could not play at any thing, and was Slothful, I was despised & hated by the boys; and because I could read & spell, & had, I may truly say, a memory & understanding forced into almost an unnatural ripeness, I became very vain, and despised most of the boys, that were at all near my own age——and before I was eight years old, I was a character—-(Letter to Thomas Poole, October 9, 1797) Alth publ much the mora impr he w life jour crit diff crit and crit and WOrk biOg and fTEq 293. AlthOugh this letter was written before any of these five journals began publication, Colerige's concept of himself.at an early age suggests much the same attitude that critics often expressed about him throughout the century. The reviewers' underlying theories also assume that the morality and literary value of a man's writing are directed toward the improvement of the culture of the reader and society and that his works can be evaluated on the basis of the author's morality as well as what he writes. On the theory that the moral and social concepts of an author's life and work are more important than the political stances of these journals, particuhrly after Coleridge's lifetime, and any set of critical theories for evaluating the writing itself, this study reflects different critical emphases m.the three major periods of Coleridge's critical reception in these five journals. In the period between 1802 and 1835 criticisms of the poetry predominated; between 1835 and 1870 critics concentrated on the prose and recollections of Coleridge's life and conversation; and between 1870 and 1902 textual studies of individual works and editorial methods became the critical focus, although the biographical emphasis prevailed in reviews of new editions of letters and notebooks and also of books about Coleridge's life. In the evaluation of Coleridge's poetry during his lifetime critics frequently interpreted the poems from the standpoint of the association of ideas critical theory. The poem "Love" was Coleridge's most popular poem Crit mean They asso Grit read capd gene to U chal beli! Chat 0f t1 Brom of l( creai trutl Anch Cole] poem, and.it was also especially suited to this kind of criticism. Critics.stressed the identity of mind between the poet and reader by means of associations of ideas of thought and emotion in the poems. They also pondered whether the reader should follow the poets' associations in the best poetry or if the poem should enable the reader to create associations of ideas recollected from his own experience. Critics argued whether the poet should portray the ideal for which the reader should aim and which the poet with his exceptional imaginative capability should be able to portray, or whether the poem Should suggest general experiences common to all mankind. Although no general resolutions to these questions were achieved during this period, only Francis Jeffrey challenged the Lake poets' low language and Subject matter because he believed a poet should express the best ideas rather than what is common. After Jeffrey's comments in 1802, Coleridge was often praised for the chains of associated ideas in his poetry that duplicate the processes of the mind as exactly as those in a psychological Study by Hartley or Brown. Reviewers particularly praise the lofty expression of the theory of love in the poem of that title and also Coleridge's ability to create an imaginative world of the Supernatural that portrays psychological truth with which the reader can identify, especially in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "Christabel." Besides the association of ideas criticism, reviewers evaluated Coleridge's role as a poetic innovator. In about equal numbers they accep hemt the 1 gene] Words maj01 ceasr away loss pers COD. C WEre sort unfj 295. accepted his premise that he created original forms of poetry or said hereturned to the oldest forms of poetry in the English language. In the frequent comparisons between Wordsworth and Coleridge, critics generally concluded that Coleridge was more philOSOphical whereas Wordsworth had a more instinctive poetic reSponse to life. But the major critical questions asked about Coleridge's poetry were why he ceased writing imaginative works and switched to the study of metaphyiscs, and whether or not his frequent changes of religious and political views away from the radical position expressed in "France: An Ode" and the loss of imaginative power expressed in "Dejection: An Ode" were a sign of a lack of strength of character. And critics searched Coleridge's personality for reasons why he left "Christabel" a fragment. The conclusions critics most frequently reached to explain these matters were that Coleridge was indolent, that his genius was of a fragmentary sort that did not enable him to complete the works he planned, or that his drug addiction caused him to change his views and leave works unfinished. Although the association of ideas theory was alsozpplied to evaluations of Coleridge's prose, particularly in Westminster Review comparisons between Coleridge's and Bentham's philosophical theories, after 1835 no one critical method prevailed in the infrequent evaluations of Coleridge's poetry. Critics presented brief general interpretations of Coleridge's poetry in the second period, usually to acknowledge Cole reco phys Cole from thro poet stud prod eva] note abOI pro< p OE] rev 296. Coleridge's greatness as a poet in discussions of his prose or recollections of his life. In 1870 a Blackwood's critic did formulate a new interpretation of "Love" as a description of the aftermath of physical passion and of "Christahi" and "Kubla Khan" as examples of Coleridge's fusing of imaginative genius and poetic technique. The pattern of the reception of Coleridge's poetry, then, proceeded from the association of ideas interpretation between 1802 and 1835 through a period in which reviewers showed little interest in his poetry between 1835 and 1870 to the increasing emphasis on textual studies and editing methods between 1870 and 1902. Textual studies produced some new revelations about Coleridge‘s work such as the re- evaluation of his abilities as a translator in the 18603 and of his dramatic ability as a result of the publication of the manuscript of Osorio in the 18705. Also, the Athenaeum recorded a variety of textual notes about newly discovered or little known individual poesm as well as about new editions of Coleridge's poetry. When these new editions were produced after 1870,critics also debated whether all of Coleridge's poems should be published or if the poorer works might not be better left out. And they also attempted to discern which was Coleridge‘s best or last text of various poems as well as of Lyrical Ballads when centennial editions of that book were produced. Coleridge's prose, like his poetry, received initial negative reviews in the Whig Edinburgh Review and also in Blackwood's Edinburgh more only cont app] Cole 0f 1 Cole Cole by} Com fon 297. Magazin . Although critics came to appreciate Coleridge's poetry by the end of his lifetime, his prose aroused a variety of personal and political reactions in the journals. Hazlitt's negative reviews and John Wilson's infamous comments on the Biographia were the only reviews of Coleridge's prose during his lifetime. The emphasis on the author's morality is reflected in John Wilson's charge that autobigraphy shald only be written by the exceptionally moral person who has made great contributions to his society and whose life can contribute something to the reader. And this Blackwood's critic concludes that the past cannot be recollected accurately anyway. Although both critics were most interested in Coleridge's account of his life, and both discounted the philosophy because Coleridge said it was only a fragment of his system and the total work would be published later, they took different approaches to his literary criticism. Whereas Hazlitt claims that Coleridge's critical opinions about Wordsworth are really restatements of Hazlitt's views, Wilson declares that they are original with Coleridge. Following the assessments of the Biographia Literaria in 1817, Coleridge's prose was ignored until after his death, when reviewers evaluated the selections of Egblg_Tglk_and Literary Remains published by H.N. Coleridge in 1835 and 1837, and Walter Pater subsequently concluded that the literary criticism is Coleridge's best attempt to formulate absolute principles. Before Pater's article was published in 1866 lect1 have joun reco; were crit: reli; m to t] Stua' 0D U in 1. the j refo were 298. 1866 the increasing publication of fragments of Coleridge's ShakeSpeare lectures and comments on other earlier writers had caused Coleridge to have a place in most evaluations of Shakespeare criticisms in these journals. Thus, whereas his criticism of Wordsworth received some recognition during his lifetime, Coleridge's criticisms of Shakespeare were more often recognized in the second period. Whereas reviewers increasingly evaluated Coleridge's literary criticism after his death, the prose statements of his political and religious views were little noticed after 1835 except in the Westminster Review, which considered Coleridge's politics and philosophy in relation to the utilitarian tradition in essays by a reviewer in 1835, by John Stuart Mill in 1840, by Walter Pater in 1866, and by another commentator on two series of Coleridge's letters published in the Westminster Review in 1870. These critics stress Coleridge's subsidiary contribution to the Benthamite tradition of human progress through moral and social reform. The association of ideas tradition was applied to the criticism of Coleridge's poetry during his lifetime, and it had some effect on Westminster comments on Coleridge's prose during the second period. However, after 1870 critics organized their comments on Coleridge's letters, notebooks, and studies of his life around his biography. Like the reviews of the poetry in this last period, though,some critics also were concerned with the texts and editions of Coleridge's prose. A a d .0 0 V C t e e r .1 r p 1 D b l m .m l .1 0 1W n 1m D h h :1 a h f e m 0 00 t U B ..D g t p l S l t t O p D; 0 W e t l S D: 299. Blackwood's critic reports on.new collections of Coleridge's marginalia, and H. Hale White concludes that Coleridge had an appalling lack of knowledge of earlier philosophers. But critical interest in Coleridge's biography overrulesnew editions of Egbl§_3§lk and 1hg_Friend which were given only brief notice. The evaluations of Coleridge's prose during this century from 1802 to 1902 shifted according to which element of his writing was being published at a particular time. His political and religious views were increasingly ignored after 1835, but parallel curves of critical interest subsequently developed in the literary criticism and philosophy. As interest in Coleridge's literary criticism and philosophy increased, the reviewers first concluded that he had made major contributions to. the develOpment of English thought in these areas. But toward the end of the century critics were suggesting that Coleridge's literary criticism, particularly his views on ShakeSpeare, were overrated, as were his philosoPhical notions. Like the criticisms of his.poetry, then, opinions of the value of Coleridge's prose varied greatly; but positive evaluations were centered in the second period between 1835 and 1870, following the emphasis on his poetry before 1835. However, Coleridge's life continued to interest critics from the publication of the Biographia Literaria in 1817 to 1870, although it took major precedence, along with the textual Studies and evaluations of editorial efforts, as his works were re— published in the third period between 1870 and 1902. Cole: this addi eval for reco Cole and Cole with the stre coul At a Prai Wi ti tha: conu Eng The Bra 300. During Coleridge's lifetime critics were interested in why Coleridge turned from poetry to metaphysics and were inclined to attribute this shift to poetic indolence, although Hazlitt did bring up the drug addiction question. After Coleridge's death, critics attempted to evaluate the style and content of Coleridge's conversations and to account for the failure of his life as they interpreted it on the basis of recollections by various associates. Whether the recollections of Coleridge's drug addiction and personal unhappiness that were published and reviewed before 1850 were responsible for the eclipsed interest in Coleridge between 1850 and 1870 cannot be fully determined. However, with the emphasis on the morality of the author as a prerequisite for the evaluation of his writing, a qualification that Coleridge also stressed in the Biographia Literaria, it is not surprising if critics could no longer justify Coleridge as a personal example to the readers. At any rate, Coleridge's reception continued to have a tone of mixed praise and resentment after 1870 when critics formed their evaluations with the aid of earlier recollections but with a more objective attitude than that maintained by Coleridge's close associates. After 1870 when a Blackwood's critic repeated many of the old comments about Coleridge in an essay that was part of a series on great English poets, a surge of biographical studies of Coleridge followed. The Blackwoods, Quarterly,and Athenaeum reviewers all criticized Alois Brandl's account of Coleridge's life in particular. They were favorable C011 phy: fon the the; the 0f bes on him ant 301. toward his perceptive.account of Coleridge's life and work, but they condemned the translation for many errors. In 1885 and 1887 respectively the Edinburgh Review and the Quarterly Review surveyed Coleridge's life and work on the basis of several recently published biographical accounts. These critics agree on the major divisions of Coleridge's life: as a poet, as a journalist, and then as a metae physician. They differ, however, in that the uarterl reviewer formulates his argument around the thesis that Coleridge lacked the common sense to succeed in the ordinary affairs of life. The Edinburgh critic, on the other hand, only attempts to review H.D. Traill's biography of Coleridge. Both the Edinburgh and Quarterly critics agree that Coleridge had the potential to be a successful journalist, and they express disapproval that he did not become financially independent. That critics continued to regard Coleridge as primarily a poet is reflected by the movement to have the cottage at Nether Stowey, where Coleridge wrote his best poetry, set aside as a national monument. This movement also reflects the significance with which Coleridge and the other Lake poets were regarded at the end of the century in spite of the fact that the ideal critical concept of the best man writing the best works to improve the reader necessitated an evaluation of Coleridge on the basis of what he was rather than what critics would have liked him to be. And this concept along with the political and personal antagonisms of reviewers toward Coleridge during his lifetime did not pre lii 3P1 Ma] ha‘ Ge< the teI Col prt poe lii ex1 IQ! be 302. prevent critics from making some significant evaluations of Coleridge's life and work and collecting the scattered fragments of his writing. Critics during Coleridge's lifetime came to recognize and appreciate Coleridge's poetic methods in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Christabel," and "Dejection: An Ode." Since 1902 critics have placed higher value on "Kubla Khan" and the group of poems that George MacLean Harper categorized as "The Conversation Poems," displacing the long popular poem "Love." However, twentieth century critics have tended to support their nineteenth century predecessors who decided that Coleridge's plays disPlay insufficient dramatic skill to warrant production and that his translations are most inaccurate and without ‘ poetic innovations. Although Coleridge's prose was much less appreciated during his lifetime, twentieth century critics have heralded the Biographia Literaria as one of the most significant documents in the development of the modern critical tradition. In the same way,Coleridge's contribution to the broad church movement and to modern political ideas have been extensively treated by recent critics. The major difference in approach to Coleridge's critical reception in the period of great scholarly activity since 1902 has been the emphasis on textual and source studies with declining concern for the moral evaluation of the author's life as a standard for the evaluation of the contribution of his writing to the improvement of c1111 S.T. worl isx of! eva‘ rev n e W 303. culture in society. However, as E.K. Chambers' 1834 biography of S.T. Coleridge is.now badly outdated, the new editions of Coleridge's works and the publication of a complete edition of his notebooks that is now underway will undoubtedly support further biographical studies of Coleridge. And for these studies critics must turn again to the evaluations and recollections made by Coleridge's associates and reviewers during the nineteenth.century, the major aspects of which were included in the journds that this.study has considered. Tayl Cole BIBLIOGRAPHY Publications by Samuel Taylor Coleridge The following list includes only those publications by Samuel Taylor Coleridge that are relevant to the preparation of this Study. Coleridge, S.T. Anima Poetae: from the Unpublished Note Books. Edited by E.H. Coleridge. London, 1895. . Biographia Literaria. Edited by J. Shawcross. Two Volumes. London, 1960. Collected Letters, 1785—1819. Edited by E.L. Griggs. Four Volumes. London, 1956. Essays pp His Own Times. Three Volumes. Edited by Sara Coleridge. London, 1850. . Miscellanies, Aesthetic and Literagy. Edited by T. Ashe. London, 1885. . Notes, Theological, Political and Miscellaneous. Edited by D. Coleridge. London, 1853. . Select Poetgy and Prose. Edited by S. Potter. London: The Nonesuch Library, 1933. . The Complete Poetical Works 9f Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Two Volumes. Oxford, 1912. The Complete Works pf Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Seven Volumes. Edited by W.G.T. Shedd. New York, 1884. Edited by C. Patmore. London, 1917. 304 Colt 305. Coleridge's Contributions to These Journals Coleridge, S.T. "Fancy in Nubibus,” a sonnet, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 6 (November, 1819), 196. "Historie and Gests of Maxilian," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 11 (January, 1822), 3—13. . "Letter to Peter Morris, M.D. on the Sorts and Uses of Literary Praise," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 7 (September, 1820), 628-631. . "The Character of Sir Thomas Brown as a Writer," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 6 (November, 1819), 197—198. . "The History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade. By T. Clarkson," Edinburgh Review, Volume 12 (July, 1808), 355—379. "What is an English Sonnet," and "The Old Man's Sigh," a sonnet, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 31 (June, 1832), 956. Periodical Criticisms Relating to Coleridge's Reception "A Century of Great Poets from 1750 Downwards. No. IV.——Samue1 Taylor Coleridge," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 110 (November, 1871), 552-576. "A Description of the Wordsworth and Coleridge MSS. in the Possession of Mr. T. Norton Longman," Athenaeum, Number 3636 (July 3, 1897), 31—32. "A Facsimile Reproduction of the Proofs and MSS. of some of the Poems of Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3746 (August 12, 1899), 213—214. Ashe, T. "The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, Number 3151 (March 17, 1888), 339-340. "A Talk about Odes," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 129 (June, 1881), 783-802. Bayne, T. ”Coleridge's Quotations," Athenaeum, Number 3384 (September 3, 1892), 322. Bc "B 306. Bowring, J. "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge Esq., . " Westminster Rev1ew, Volume 12 (January, 1830), 1—31. "Brutus and Evadne," Quarterly Review, Volume 22 (January, 1820), 402—415. Buckingham, J.S. "Characteristics 0 f the Present State of English Literature," Athenaeum, Numbe r 1 (January 2, 1828), 1—2. C.E.H. "Note on Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3457 (January 27, 1894), 114. Campbell, J. Dykes. "A Sonnet by S.T. Coleridge. Original or Translated?" Athenaeum, Number 2949 (May 3, 1884), 566—567 . "A Sonnet by S.T. Coleridge. A Passage in the 'Biographia Literaria,'" Athenaeum, Number 3331 (August 29, 1891), 299. . "Coleridge and the Anti—Jacobins,‘ ' Athenaeum, Number 3266 (May 31, 1890), 703-704. "Coleridge, Lamb, Leigh Hunt, and Others in 'The Poetical Register,'” Athenaeum, Number 2994 (March 14, 1885), 344—345. ”Coleridge Marginalia Hitherto Unpublished,” Athenaeum, Number 3154 (April 7, 1888), 435 .‘ "Coleridge Marginalia Hitherto unpublished. On Jahn's 'History of the Hebrew Commonwealth,'" Athenaeum, Number 3165 (June 23, 1888), 795—796. . ”Coleridge on Cary's 'Dante,'" Athenaeum, Number 3141 (January 7, 1888), 17. ”Coleridge on Quaker Principles," Athenaeum, Number 3438 (September 16, 1893), 385—386. "Coleridge's Lectures in 1818," Athenaeum, Number 3203 (March 16, 1889), 345. "Coleridge's Lectures in 1818," Athenaeum, Number 3210 (May 4, 1889), 568. . "Coleridge's Notes," Athenaeum, Number 3158 (May 5, 1888), 566—567. , 307. ll - u . Coleridge's 'Osorio' and 'Remorse '".Athenaeum Number 3258 (April 5, 1890), 445-446. ’ ’ . "Coleridge's 'Osorio' and 'Remorse, '" Athenaeum, Number 3374 (June 25, 1892), 834—835. . "Coleridge's Quotations," Athenaeum, Number 3382 (August 20, 1892), 259-260. . "Reply to Ivor James," Athenaeum, Number 3256 (March 22, 1890), 372. 1892), 778—779. . "Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3437 (September 9, 1893), 356. . ”Scott on Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3394 (November 12, 1892), 664—665. . "Scott on Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3397 (December 3, . "Some Lectures Delivered by Coleridge in the Winter of 1818—1819," Athenaeum, Number 3348 (December 26, 1891), 865— 866. . "Some Lectures Delivered by Coleridge in the Winter of 1818—1819," Athenaeum, Number 3349 (January 2, 1892), 17—18. "The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, Number 3150 (March 10, 1888), 307—308. "The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, Number 3153 (March 31, 1888), 405. . ”The 'London Magazine,'" Athenaeum, Number 3104 (April 23, 1887), 546. . "The 'Lyrical Ballads' of 1800," Athenaeum, Number 3291 (November 22, 1890), 699-700. ”The PrOSpectus of Coleridge's 'Watchman,'" Athenaeum, Number 3450 (December 9, 1893), 808—809. "Unpublished Verses by Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3255 (March 15, 1890), 341. "C "C "C "C Co 308. "Carlyle's'Works,'" Quarterly Review, Volume 66 (September, 1840), 446-503. "Charles Lamb," Quarterly Review, Volume 192 (October, 1900), 312—335. "Charles Lamb and Some of his Companions," Quarterly Review, Volume 122 (January, 1867), 1—15. "Christopher under Canvass," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 67 (April, 1850), 481—512. Cobden—Sanderson, T.J. "The 1828 Edition of Coleridge's Poems," Athenaeum, Number 3154 (April 7, 1888), 437. Coleridge, E.H. "Coleridge and Nether Stowey," Athenaeum, Number 3425 (June 17, 1893), 765—766. . "Note on Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3457 (January 27, 1&4L HA. Coleridge, H.N. "Cottle's Recollections," Quarterly Review, Volume 59 (July, 1837), 25—32. . "The Poetical Works of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 52 (August, 1834), 1-38. Coleridge, J.T. "The Remorse. A Tragedy. By S.T. Coleridge. Second Edition," Quarterly Review, Volume 11 (April, 1814), 177—190. "Coleridge and Southey," Edinburgh Review, Volume 87 (April, 1848), 368—392. "Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 33 (January, 1840), 257-302. "Coleridge Marginalia. Hitherto Unpublished," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 131 (January, 1882), 107—125. "Coleridge's 'Osorio,'" Athenaeum, Number 2396 (September 27, 1873), 391-392. "Coleridge's Table—Talk," Athenaeum, Number 3715 (January 7, 1899), 18. CorreSpondent. "Progressive Changes in English Prose—Writing," Athenaeum, Number 3203 (March 16, 1889), 346. DeQuincey, Thomas, "Coleridge and Opium—Eating," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 57 (January, 1845), 117—132. ] "I Fr Ga Gr Gr "G1 Ha: 309. E.G.H. "Schiller's 'Wallenstein.‘ Translated by S.T. Coleridge," Westminster Review, volume 53 (July, 1850), 187—195. "Early Recollections chiefly Relating to the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge, during his long residence in Bristol," Athenaeum, Number 498 (May 13, 1837), 343. "English Men of Letters, edited by John Morley.—-Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 162 (July, 1885), 301—351. Ferrier, J.E. "The Plagiarisms of S.T. Coleridge," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 47 (March, 1840), 287—299. Forman, H.B. "Coleridge's Editors and Critics," Athenaeum, Number 2782 (February 19, 1881), 264. Freligrath, Frederick. "Coleridge's Manuscript of Schiller's Piccolomini," Athenaeum, Number 1766 (August 31, 1861), 283—284. "Coleridge's Manuscript of Schiller's Wallenstein," Athenaeum, Number 1755 (June 15, 1861), 797—798. Garnett, Richard. "Sibylline Leaves," Athenaeum, Number 3661 (December 25, 1897), 885. Graves, R.P. "Coleridge's Opium—Eating," Athenaeum, Number 3143 (January 21, 1888), 85—86. Greswell, William. "The Coleridge Cottage at Nether Stowey," Athenaeum, Number 3584 (July 4, 1896), 413. Grove, George. "Coleridge Notes,” Athenaeum, Number 3155 (April 14, 1888), 470-471. "Guesses at Truth," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 63 (June, 1848), 701—702. Hazlitt, William. "Biographia Literaria: or Biographical Sketches of My Literary Life and Opinions. By S.T. Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 28 (August, 1817), 488—515. "Christabel: Kubla Khan, a Vision. The Pains of Sleep. By S.T. Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 27 (September, 1816), 58—67. "The Statesman's Manual: or the Bible the best Guide to Political Skill and Foresight: A Lay-Sermon, addressed to the Higher Classes of Society," Edinburgh Review, Volume 27 (December, 1816), 444-459. "1 "1 "1 H1 J; Jr u u n n n n 310. "Hints towards the Formation of a more Comprehensive Theory of Life," Athenaeum, Number 1111 (February 10,‘l849), 1394141. ”Historical Romance," Quarterly Review, Volume 35 (March, 1827), 518— 566. "Hurwitz's Hebrew Tales," Quarterly Review, Volume 35 (January,1827), Hutchinson, Thomas. "The Text of Wordsworth," Athenaeum, Number 3584 (July 4, 1896), 35436. James, Ivor. "The Sources of 'The Ancient Mariner,'" Athenaeum, Number 3256 (March 22, 1890), 371—372. Jeffrey, Francis. "Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honorable Sir James Mackintosh," Edinburgh Review, Volume 62 (October, 1835), 205—255, . "Thalaba the Destroyer: A Metrical Romance," Edinburgh Review, Volume 1 (October, 1802), 63—83. "Letters, Conversations, and Recollections of S.T. Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 424 (December 11, 1835), 927—928. "Latin Versification," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 76 (November, 1854), 560—575. "Letters, Conversations, and Recollections of S.T. Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 425 (December 19, 1835), 941—942. "Letters from Mr. Coleridge," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 10 (October, 1821), 241—262. "Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3532 (July 6, 1895), 29-30. "Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 183 (January, 1896), 99-128. "Literary Gossip," Athenaeum, Number 2925 (November 17, 1883), 138. "Living Poets and Poetesses," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 31 (June, 1832), 957-964. "I "I "M "M 11-1- A 311. Lockhart, J.G. "Coleridge's Literary Remains," Quarterly Review, Volume 59 (July, 1837), 1—32. ”Life and Letters of Southey," Quarterly Review, Volume 88 (December, 1850), 197—247. . "Specimens of the Table-Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Quarterly Review, Volume 53 (February, 1835), 79—103. "Lyrical Ballads," Athenaeum, Number 3263 (May 10, 1890), 599—600. "Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth and S.T. Coleridge, l798," Athenaeum, Number 3690 (July 16, 1898), 87-88. MacCarthy, D.F. "Unnoted Variations in the Text of Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 2596 (July 28, 1877), 112—113. Mathewson, L. "Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Notes on Comic Liteature," Athenaeum, Number 3612 (January 16, 1897), 86. ”Mamoirs of Wordsworth," Quarterly Review, Volume 92 (December, 1852), 182—236. "Memorials of Coleorton: being Letters from Coleridge, Wordsworth and his Sister, Southey, and Sir Walter Scott to Sir George and Lady Beaumont, 1803-1834," Athenaeum, Number 3134 (November 19, 1887), 667-669. Mill, John Stuart. "Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 33 (January, 1840), 260. MOZley, W.E. "Lines by Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3146 (February 11, 1888), 179. "Muses Library-~The Poetry of S.T. Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3656 (November 20, 1897), 701—702. "Notes of Wordsworth," Athenaeum, Number 3461 (February 24, 1894), 246—247. "Notes on Stillingfleet," Athenaeum, Number 2474 (March 27, 1875), ? 422—423. "Notes, Theological Political and Miscellaneous,” Athenaeum, Number 1359 (November 12, 1853), 1354. :0 0r: "0 "O HO "0 "0 "C ”P I II] I 312. "On Translating Homer," Westminster Review, Volume 77 (January, 1862) , 81—91. Oriel College, Oxford. "David Hume Charged by Mr Coleridge with Plagiarism from St Thomas Aquinas," Blackwood‘s Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 3 (September, 1818), 653—657. "Original Letters of Scott, Hope, and Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 377 (January 10, 1835), 55—56. "Our Library Table," Athenaeum, Number 2948 (April 26, 1884), 535. M "Our Library Table, Athenaeum, Number 2984 (January 3, 1885), 13. "Our Library Table," Athenaeum, Number 3003 (May 16, 1885), 629. "Our Weekly Gossip,‘ Athenaeum, Number 1750 (May 11, 1861), 633. "Our Weekly Gossip," Athenaeum, Number 1751 (May 18, 1861), 663. "Passages from the Prose and Table Talk of Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3508 (January 19, 1895), 76. Pater, Walter. "Coleridge's Writings," Westminster Review, Volume 85 (January, 1866), 48—60. "Poetry," Westminster Review, Volume 139 (January, 1893), 702—705. "Recent Shakespearian Literature," Edinburgh Review, Volume 71 (July, 1840), 446—493. "Recollections of Leslie," Quarterly Review, Volume 107 (April, 1860), 470-514. "Rejected Addresses or the New Theatrum Poetarum," Edinburgh Review, Volume 20 (November, 1812), 434—451. "Reminiscences of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey," Athenaeum, Number 1024 (June 12, 1847), 620. S., J. "To the Reviewer of Coleridge's Biographia Literaria, in Blackwood's Magazine for October,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 2 (December, 1817), 285—288. "Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 165 (July, 1887), 60-96. IISE "Se "SE "31 "S1 Us] "3] Us] 313. "Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the English Romantic School," Athenaeum, Number 3112 (June 18, 1887), 791—794. "Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Notes on Comic.Literature:I A Find," Athenaeum, Number 3609 (December 26, 1896), 906—907. "Sara Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 2385 (July 12, 1873), 39—40. "Seven Lectures on Shakespeare and Milton,".Athenaeum, Number 1513 (October 25, 1856), 1299-1300. "Shelley and Keats," Edinburgh Review, Volume 90 (October, 1849), 388-433. "Sketches of Contemporary Authors, No. XII, Lord Byron,” Athenaeum, Number 23 (April 8, 1828), 351. "Specimens of the Table Talk of the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 395 (May 23, 1835), 3874388. "Specimens of the Table Talk of the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 396 (May 30, 1835), 406~407. "Specimens of the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Edinburgh Review, Volume 61 (April, 1835), 129—153. "Specimens of the Table-Talk of S.T. Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 22 (April, 1835), 531—537. "Spiritual Philosophy: founded on the teaching of the late Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 2022 (July 28, 1866), 107-108. Stebbing, Henry. "The Athenaeum in 1828-1830," Athenaeum, Number 2621 (January 19, 1878), 88—89. Sterling, John. "An Appeal Apologetic, From Phillip Drunk to Phillip Sober,” Athenaeum, Number 36 (July 2, 1828), 567-568. "Superstition and Knowledge,” Quarterly Review, Volume 29 (July, 1828), 440—475. "Switzerland in Summer and Autumn.——Part III," Blackwood‘s Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 99 (January, 1866), 45—66. III "P 314. "Table—Talk," Quarterly Review, Volume 98 (December, 1855), 1—31. "Tennyson's 'Maud,'" Edinburgh Review, Volume 102 (October, 1855), 498-519. "The Coleridge Books in Professor Green's Library," Athenaeum, Number 2757 (August 28, 1880), 273-274. "The Friend: A Series of Essays," Athenaeum, Number 1997 (February 3, 1866), 171. "The Old Saloon," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 142 (August, 1887), 235—263. "The Philadelphia Reprint of the 'Lyrical Ballads,'" Athenaeum, Number 3460 (February 17, 1894), 213. "The Poems of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 1293 (August 7, 1852), 841. "The Poetic Mirror," Quarterly Review, Volume 15 (July, 1816), 468—475. "The Poetical and Dramatic Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum Number 2583 (April 28, 1877), 538. 9 "The Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3425 (June 17, 1893), 757—760. "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," Athenaeum, Number 1513 (November 29, 1856), 1462. "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," Athenaeum, Number 3792 (June 30, 1900), 8323. "The Rime of the Ancient Waggonere,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 4 (February, 1819), 571-574. "The Raven: a Poem of S.T. Coleridge,” Athenaeum, Number 3676 (April 9, 1898), 474. "The Source of 'The Ancient Mariner.‘ By Ivor James,” Athenaeum, Number 3255 (March 15, 1890), 335—336. "The Spirit of the Age: or Contemporary Portraits,” Edinburgh Review, Volume 42 (April, 1825), 254—260. HT] ”Tl “T "U "U "U "V 315. "The Unseen Foundations of Society,"'Quarterlleeview,-Vo1u e 176 (April, 1893), 404—432; "The Westminster Review.-—Writings of Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 116 (January 16, 1830), 1718. l‘Theodore Hook," Quarterly Review, Volume 72 (May, 1843), 53—108. "Unpublished Letters of Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 416 (August 9, 1834), 771. "Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Part I," Westminster Review, Volume 93 (April, 1870), 169—177. "Unpublished Letters Written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Part II," Westminster Review, Volume 94 (July, 1870), 1—24. venables, E. "Coleridge's 'Fly—Catchers,'" Athenaeum, Number 2614 (December 1, 1877), 699. "Victor Hugo on Shakespeare," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 96 (August, 1864), 164—180. W., M.D. "Coleridgeana," Athenaeum, Number 1691 (March 24, 1860), 409. Ward, C.A. "Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3548 (October 26, 1895), 571. "Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3562 (February 1, 1896), 149. "Lines by Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3145 (February 4, 1888), 147. Watson, Lucy E. ”Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3552 (November 23, 1895), 719. Waterer, Clarence. "The Note—Books of Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Westminster Review, Volume 145 (April, 1895), 526—538. Waugh, F.G. "Lines by Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3144 (January 28, 1888), 116. White, W.H. ”Coleridge on Spinoza," Athenaeum, Number 3630 (May 22, 1897), 680—681. "Coleridge's 'Mutual Passion,'" Athenaeum, Number 3662 (January 1, 1898), 24. Ha' Hi, Hyl 316. "William Blackwood and His Sons, Their Magazine and Friends," Edinburgh Review, Volume 187 (January, 1898), 40—66; Wilson, John. "Coleridge's Poetical Works," Blackwood's Edinburgh Ma azine, Volume 36 (OCtober, 1834), 542—570. . "Essays on the Lake School of Poetry. No. III.-—Coleridge," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 6 (October, 1819), 3—12. "Some Observations on the 'Biographia Literaria' of S.T. Coleridge, Esq.—-1817," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 2 (October, 1817), 3—18. . "The Missionary: A Poem. By the Rev. W.L. Bowles," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 6 (October, 1819), 13—17. Young, H.S. "Samuel Taylor Coleridge," Athenaeum, Number 3436 (September 2, 1893), 322. Supplementary Studies a. Books Bower, G.S. David Hartley and James Mill. New York, 1881. Clive, John. Scotch Reviewers 1802-1815. Cambridge, 1957. Ellegard, A. Britain. Goteborg, 19577 ._1 Graham, Walter. English Literagy Periodicals. New York, 1930. o Tory Criticism ig_the Quarterly Review 1809—1853. 1921. New York, Hartley, David. Observations 93 Man, His Frame, His Duty, d His Egpectations. London, 1749. Hildyard, M.C. Lockhart's Literary Criticism. Oxford, 1931. Horton, Rod W. and H.W. Edwards. Backgrounds 9§_American Literayy Thought. New York, 1967. Hyman, Stanley E. The Armed Vision A Study ig_the Methods 2§_Modern Literagy Criticism, New York, 1955. J4 L L M M 1\ F c c < 317. Jeffrey, Francis. 'Contributions 39 the Edinburgh Review. New York, 1888. Lang, Allen. The Life and Letters 2: John Gibson Lockhart. London, 1927. L0unsbury, Thomas R. The Life and Times gf_Tennyson. New Haven, 1915. Madison, James. "The Federalist, No. 10," AmeriCan Issues The Social Record, Two Volumes. Edited by Merle Curti., New York, 1955. Marchand, Leslie A. The Athenaeum: .A Mirror 2f Victorian Culture. Chapel Hill, 1941. Nesbitt, George L. Benthamite Reviewing the First TWelve Years 9f_the Westminster Review 182441838. New York, 1934. Routh, H.V. Towards the Twentieth Century. New York,1937. Shine H. and H.G. Sine. The Quarterly Review under Gifford Identifications 9£_Contributions 1809-1824. Chapel Hill, 1949. Shorter, C.K. Victorian Literature: Sixty Years of Books and Bookmen. London, 1897. ' Strout, Alan L. .5 Bibliography E; Articles iE_B1ackwood's Magazine 1817-1825. Lubbock, Texas, 1959. Swann, E. Christopher North, "John Wilson." Edinburgh, 1934. The Collected Writings 9: Thomas DeQuincey. Edited by D. Masson. Edinburgh, 1889—1899. Fourteen Volumes. Warren, H.G. .A History gf_Associationist Psychology. New York, 1921. Welleck, Rene. Histogy.gf Literary Criticism, 1750-1950. Four Volumes. The Romantic Age. Volume Two. New Haven, 1965. Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society. New York, 1958. Wilson, D.A., ed. The Works gf_Thomas Carlyle. Six Volumes. London, 1927. Wilson‘s Works. Twelve Volumes. Edited by J. Ferrier. Edinburgh, 1855—58. "E Ce 318. b. Periodicals "Blackwood's Magazine," London Magazine, November, 1820, 509—521. Carver, P.L. "Hazlitt's Contributions to the Edinburgh Review," Review 2; English Studies, 4 (1928), 375-393. "The Authorship of a Review of Christabel Attributed to Hazlitt," Journal pf English and Germanic Philology, 29 (1930), 562-578. Crosley, A.C. "Coleridge and Criticism," Spectator, 142 (1929), 115—116. Graham, Walter. "Contemporary Critics of Coleridge, the Poet," Publication pf_the Modern Language Association, 38 (1923), 278-289. Kallish, Martin. "The Association of Ideas and Akenside's Pleasures of the Imagination," Modern Language Notes, 62 (1947), 166—173. . "The Association of Ideas and Critical Theory: Hobbes, Locke, and Addison," English Literary History, 12 (1942), 290-315. "The Associationist Criticism of Francis Hutcheson and David Hume," Studies ip_Philology, 43 (1946), 644—667. Macaulay, Thomas B. "Moore's Life of Byron," Edinburgh Review, Volume 53 (June, 1831), 353. Maurice, F.D. "Sketches of Contemporary Authors," Athenaeum, Number 3 (January 16, 1828), 33—35. . "Sketches of Contemporary Authors," Athenaeum, Number 23 (April 8, 1828), 351. Schneider, Elizabeth. "The Unknown Reviewer of Christabel: Jeffrey, Hazlitt, Tom Moore," Publication pf_the Modern Language Association, 70 (1955), 417-432. Stewart, J.T.M. "Some Coleridge Letters," Review p§_English Studies, 10 (1934), 451—456. Strout, Alan L. "Samuel Taylor Coleridge and John Wilson of Blackwood's Magazine," Publication pf the Modern Language Association, 48 (1933), 100—128. 319. "The Centenary of 'The Quarterly Review,'" Quarterly Review, Volume 210 (April, 1909), 731—784. "The Centenary of 'The Quarterly Review' (11)," Quarterly Review, Volume 211 (July, 1909), 279—324. "The Edinburgh Review, 1802—1902," Edinburgh Review, Volume 196 (October, 1902), 275-318. Welker, J.J. "The Position of the Quarterlies on some Classical Dogmas," Studies ip_Philology, 37 (1940), 542—562. "William Blackwood and His Sons Their Magazine and Friends," Edinburgh Review, Volume 187 (January, 1898), 40-66. H WW 1293 03071 HIM! 3 Y .H S R E V N U E T A T S N A m H m M u 1. .1, .3169}. Lg $3.. E. Y A. xiikuxrvio. ..i $3.3}... .5