This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Recommended CitationSeabert, Virgina, "Coleridge's Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean Criticism." (1938). Master's Teses. Paper 350.hp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/350
Fowell has aptly said that "the history ot his development is the
gradual substi tution ot dream to r logic."3 At an early age,
coleridgers t ru i t tu l imagination began to project i t s e l t . I t
showed i t se l f in his games, in his dramatizations of the stories
~ e read. Coleridgers eight years a t Christrs Hospital in London,
with their hours ot loneliness and inner reflections, were years
in which his native love for the inf inite and mysterious was fos-
tered. Early in the f i r s t volume of the Biographia Literaria
there is a note of longing for the unknown and the inf in i te .
In my friendless wanderings on our leave-days (for I was an orphan and had scarcelyany connections in London) highly was I de-l ighted, i t any passenger, especially i f hewere drest in black, would enter into conversa-t ion with me. For I soon found the mtans ofdirecting i t to my tavorite subjects.
These favorite subjects were the truths of metaphysics.
Coleridge gives expression to what the pursuit in metaphysics and
speculation had meant to him.
But i t in at tar time I have sought a refugefrom bodily pain and mismanaged sensibil i tyin abstruse researches, which exercised thestrength and subtlety ot the understandingwithout awakening the feelings ot the heart;s t i l l there
was along and blessed interval ,
during which my natural facult ies were allowedto expand, and my original tendencies to de-velop themselves.5
3A. E. Fowell, The Romantic Theory ot Poetry (New York, 1926),p. 80.
4Ed. by J . Shawcross (Oxtord, 1907), I , p. 10. All subsequentquotations trom the Biographia Literaria are taken trom thisedition.
5Ibid.-
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
tul ly cognizant of the peculiar deficiencies of each, though he
himself had not yet the power to define them. The following
year Coleridge enjoyed freedom from the restraint of teachers,
and his love of the inf inite and unknown was put into green pas
tures. Here he fed upon the philosophies of Voltaire and Hume,
strengthening his already assimilated views on association. The
Law of Association as Coleridge saw it "established the contem
poraneity of the original impressions" and "formed the basis of
a l l true psychology".
9He acknowledges his indebtedness f i r s t tc
Aristot le . Detailed explanations in the Biographia Literaria
show the at t i tude Coleridge bore towards Aristot le 's idea of the
general law of association and that of Hartley. The Law of
Association is fundamental in Coleridge's philosophy; i t proves
and develops the very logic and t ruth of his "faculty divine".
To Aristot le 's theory regarding the association of ideas in the
mind Coleridge's ow.n principle of the Reconciliation of Opposites
harks back.lO Aristot le 's theory of the occasioning causes of
ideas in the mind held a foreshadowing of Coleridge's own princi
ple of the Reconciliation of Opposites. Hartley's theory of
association, on the other hand, shows a lack of logical reason
ing. There was evident some detachment in his logic which made
9Biographia Literaria , I , p. 67 • .
10~ . , p. 72. Shawcross l i s t s the five agents Aristotle enu-merates in the association of ideas: 1) connection in time,whether simultaneous, ireceding, or successive; 2) vicinity or
connection in space; 3 interdependence or necessary connection,as cause and effect; 4 l ikeness; 5) contrast .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
• • • the one l i fe in us and abroad,Which meets a l l motion and becomes i ta soul,A l ight in sound, a sound-like power in l ight ,
19
Rhythm in a l l thought, and joyance everywhere;
and this divine presence is alive, containing in it a l l being in
spite of organism of nature.
And wh.a t i f a l l animated natureBe but organic harps diversely framed,That tremble into thought, as o'er them sweepsPlastic and vast, one intel lectual b r e e z ~ 0At once the Soul of each and God of a l l .
Thus what Coleridge feels in the presence of nature is that
transcendent l iving Reality.
The essential development of Coleridge's thought leads
naturally to the next great factor that influenced his l i fe and
theory. I t i s his friendship with Wordsworth. In Wordsworth he
found a man, a poet in whom his philosophical theory was exempli
f ied. What a tremendous factor this friendship played in the
development of Coleridge's mind can be traced in the Lyrical
Ballads and Coleridge's own analysis of experience and the
imagination.
Gradually Coleridge's poetic powers waned. The heat and
excitement of the contemporary events in England and France were
19"The Eolian Harp", Osgood edition, p. 285.
20Ibld.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
schlegel,23but before German p ~ i l o e o p h y could augment his
goodlY store of thought, his mind had already formed a solution
tor the imaginative element. Coleridge was a close observer;
hie intuit ional experience with nature was at times capable of
very intimate communion. In his Anima Poetae there are descrip-
tions of such experience, but he fe l t the need of a symbolic
language with which to disclose this experience.
In looking at obJects of Nature while Iam t ~ i n k i n g , as at yonder moon dim-glimmering
through the dewy window-pane, I seem ratherto be seeking, as i t were asking tor, asymbol1c.language tor something within methat always .and tor21er exists, than observinganything new • • •
He continues breaking away from every materialist ic idea of the
creative force in mind,
• • • yet s t i l l I have always an obscure
feeling as i f that new phenomena (sic)were the dim awakening of a f o r g ~ ! t e n orhidden truth ot my inner nature.
~ o w could he reconcile his own mind with the forms and phenomena
of nature? In Kant, Coleridge found one form ot solution. Al-
though he followed Kant in his reasoning, he could not restrain
himself from the pantheistic ideas as found in Plotinus and, as
23ror a full account of the parallel passages in Schlegel andColeridge, see A.A. Helmholtz, 1The Indebtedness of SamuelTaylor Coleridge to August Wilhelm von Schlegel•, Philological~ d Literary Series (Madison,l907), III , p.291.
24Anima Poetae, ed. by Ernest H. Coleridge (Boston,l895),p.l36.
25 Ib1d.-
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
~ e e l i n g of necessity. He speaks of the 1 ideas of the soul, of
t ree-will , of immortality and of God. 1 27 Kant 1 s' influence is
responsible for giving Coleridge a definition of the l imitations
pt the u n d e r s t ~ d i n g but, as is the case with many other ideas,
Coleridge worked upon the idea changing i t considerably. He ad
mits the influence of Kant.
The writings of the. i l l u s t ~ i o u s sage .o.fK6fi1gsberg, • • • invigorated and disciplinedm1 understand1ng.28
Coleridge hints in the Biographia Literaria that Kant believed
but did not reveal the fact that there is a power which has some
intimate experience with supersensible reali ty.
In 1798, at the age of twenty-six, Coleridge entered G e r m a n ~~ i t h the intention of studying German writers and their l i tera-
ture. With what enthusiasm he mingled with German common people
as well as with the learned men of the country appears in his
~ e t t e r s to the Wedgewoods (Satyrane 1 s Letters).
Through streets and streets I pressed onas happy as a child, and, I doubt not, with achildish expression of wonderment in my busyeyes, amused by the· wicker w a g g o n ~ ~ amused bythe sign-boards of the shops. • •
While dining in a German restaurant, Coleridge is reminded
by the 1pippins and cheese• of Shakespeare, not, however, to see
2 7 ~ . , I , essay 15, p. 147.
28Biographia Literar1a,I, p. 99.
29 Ibid. , I I (Second Satyrane Letter), p. 152.-
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Shakespeare put i t in my head to go to theFrench comea.y.30
And the play seemed worse to him than the English plays for he
adds
Bless me! why 3i is worse than our modernEnglish plays.
How much worse is difficul t to te l l . The English stage a t
this time produced "inart ist ic , genuinely ca·reless.•32 drama.
:Much dramatic l i terature was modelled af ter the style of the
Elizabethans. There was slavish imitation of o h a ~ a c t e r and plot ,
one reason probably for the lack of progress on the modern
English stage. Thus, Coleridge is turned away from the modern
stage with disgust. Here, in Germany, he sees the same type of
drama as that which is being produced on the English stage. The
description which he gives of this particular German play might
~ e characteristic also of the contemporary English stage.
The f i r s t act informed me, that a courtmartial is to be held on a Count Vatron whohad drawn his sword on the Colonel, his brotherin-law. The officers plead in his behalf - invain! His wife, the Colonel's s is ter , pleadswith most tempestuous agonies - in vain! Shefa l ls into hysterics and faints away, to thedropping of the inner curtain! In the secondact sentence of death is passed on the Count -his wife, as frantic and hysterical as before:
30Ibid. , p. 157.
31Ibid.
~ 2 A l l a r d y c e Nicoll,A
History of Early Nineteenth CenturyDrama-~ 8 0 0 - 1 8 5 0 (New York, 1930), I.L...E..:.__Jj2.::....---·_.· - - - - - - - - - - - - •
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
more so (good industrious creature!) she couldnot be. The third and las t act, the wife,s t i l l frantic, very frantic indeed! the soldiersJust about to f i re , the handkerchief actuallydropped; when reprieve reprieve! is heard frombehind the scenes: and in comes Prince somebody,pardons the Count, an4 the wife i s s t i l l frantic,only with Joy; that was allt33
A l i t t le hint of what the reader might expect of Coleridge la ter
when he has launched upon his dramatic criticism is found in the
remark,
• • • for such is the kind of drama which is
now substituted everywhere for Shakespeare•••
34To Coleridge such a play was not art but bombast and exag
gerated acting. Many causes led to productions of this sort .
Playhouses were large, acoustics and l ighting poor, and as a re
sult dramatic effort had to be exaggerated and spectacular.
Players shouted their l ines, while directors bellowed orders.
Coleridge, for whom thought was everything, turned with disgust
from the modern play.
In Germany, Shakespearean productions were on a higher lev
el. Coleridge himself has given the atti tude of the English
people toward Shakespeare:
The solution of this circumstance must besought in the history of our nation: theEnglish have become a busy commercial peopleand they have unquestionably derived from thispropensity many social and physical advantages:
33Biograph1a Literaria, I I (Second Satyrane Letter), pp.l57-8.
~ 4Ibid.-
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
~ h i S accounts for their lack of speculation. But the very sub
ject condition of the Germans Coleridge attributes as the cause
pf' their progress in philosophy and speculation. He says on thit
~ o i n t :• • • the Germans, unable to distinguish themselves in action, have been driven to speculation: a ll their feelings have been forced backinto the thinking and reasoning mind. To do,with them is impossible but in determining whatought to be done, they perhaps· exceed every
people of the globe. Incapable of acting outwardly, they have acted internally: they f i r s tset their spir i ts to work with an energy ofwhich England produces no parallel, since • • •the days of.Elizabeth.36
Professor Brandl says that conditions in Germany made possi·
ble the deep apj>reciation of Shakespeare for 1 many of the prince•
~ d princelings who ruled i t Germany maintained theatres in
their residences; this was perhaps the·only note-worthy service
~ o n e to Germany by the 1 Xleinstaaterei 1 • The wealthier towns
~ o l l o w e d suit and buil t theatres of their own. The people,
tired of sermons, and unable to take an interest in politics or
sports sometimes even forbidden to travel, flocked to the per
The postulate of philosophy and at thesame time the tes t of philosophic capacity,is no other than the heaven-descended KnowThyself . • . as philosophy is neither ascience of the reason or understanding only,not merely a science of morals, bM8 thescience of BEING altogether. . .
he makes an act of the direction of the Inner Sense an act of
the Will. Coleridge's "Know Thyself" is merely a technique; his
theory of knowing is a kind of making, a bringing into being
what is known. Thus, the postulate,11Know Thyself" is this
coalescence of the Subject with the Object. By Subject
Coleridge means the Self or the Intell igence and the sentient
knowing Mind: by Object he means Nature, or what is known by the
Mind in the act of knowing. The coalescence of the two is that
knowing. He is very specific in his explanation of what he
means by Subject and Object:
Now the sum of a l l that is merely object ive we wil l henceforth cal l Nature, confiningthe term to i t s passive and material sense, ascomprising a l l the phenomena by which i t sexistence is made known to us. On the otherhand, the sum of a l l that is subjective, we maycompreg!nd in the name of se l f or intell igence
For the sake of clearness, dist inct ion i s made between the self
that known, i t s knowing, i t s knowledge and what i t knows, but in
60Biographia Literaria , i , p. 173.
61Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
real i ty , this dist inction does not exis t , for when the act of
the realizing intui t ion is developing i t se l f these dist inctions
are not to be found. Coleridge r ises to the height of his
philosophy when he says:
.•• the phaenomena (the material) mustwholly disappear, and the laws alone (theformal) must remain. Thence it comes,that in nature i t se l f the more the principleof law breaks for th , the more does the huskdrop off , the phaenomena themselves becomemore spir i tua l and a t length cease al together in our consciousness.62
Thus, in the products of knowing we may distinguish Subject and
Object. A di.vision is made between the two merely to make a
discussion of each possible.
Coleridge t rea ts feelings, thoughts, ideas, desires,
images, and passions as forms of the act iv i ty of the mind, not
as "products as opposed to the processes which bring them into
being. 11 63 Thus Professor Richards explains i t : "Into the
simplest seeming 'datum' a constructing, forming act ivi ty from
the mind has entered. And the perceiving and the forming are
the same. The Subject (the self) has gone into what i t per-
eeives, and what i t perceives i s , in th is sense, i t se l f . So the
object becomes the subject and the subject the object . And as
to understand what Coleridge is saying we must not take the
62Ibid . , pp. 1?5-6.
63Richards, op.c i t . , p. 56.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
subject as something given to us; so equally we must not take
the subject to be a mere empty formless void out of which a l l
things mysteriously and ceaselessly rush to become everything we
know. The subject is what i t is through the objects i t has
been."64
Upon such a process Coleridge bases his theory of the
Imagination. I t is in the Biographia Literaria that Coleridge
makes a distinction between a primary and a secondary imagina-
tion:
The Imagination then, I consider eitheras primary, or secondary. The primary Imaginat ion I hold to be the living Power and primeAgent of a l l human Perception, and a repetit ionin the fini te mind of the g ~ e r n a l act of creation in the inf ini te I AM.
That is , the Self is active in the f in i te , working in the Inf i
nite, the •realizing intuit ion." This primary imagination is ,
therefore, a faculty that enables man to differentia te his own
consciousness from the sensible world without; i t makes a
declaration of i t s individual existence, dist inct from a l l else.
The f i r s t sphere of activity, divine act ivi ty, is the mind or
rational spir i t , in which the sublime unity differentiates i t -self into the duality of thought and being, in other words, into
that of consciousness and i t s objects.
64Ibid.
65Shawcross, o p . o i ~ . , I , p. 2 0 2 ~
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
The primary imagination is merely the experience imagina
t ion, the normal perception that brings to us the ordinary world
of sense. Professor Richards describes i t as the power that
produces to our senses "the world of motor-buses, beef-steaks,
and acquaintances, the framework of things and events within
which we maintain our everyday existence, the world of the
routine satisfaction of our human exigences.n66 This form of
imagination Coleridge would at t r ibute to every human being.
The greater of the two forms of imaginationis ,
of course,the secondary imagination. This he considers
. the echo of the former, co-existing withthe conscious will , yet s t i l l as identical
67with the primary in the kind of i t s operation.
Therefore, creation is going on in the mind, but i t i s a creatio
directed by the will .
Coleridge goes on to describe the function of the secondary
imagination:
I t dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, inorder to recreate; or where this process isrendered impossible, yet s t i l l at a l l eventsi t struggles to idealize and to unify. I tis essential ly vi ta l , even as a l l objects(as objects) are essent ia l ly fixed and dead.68
The secondary imagination re-forms the world, takes the
66Op.cit . , p. 56.
67Biographia Literar ia, I , p. 202.
68Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
than a mode of memory emancipated from theorder of time and space; while i t isblended with, and modified by that empirical phenomenon of the will , which we expressby the word Choice. But equally with theordinary memory, the Fancy must receive a l li t s materials ready made from the law ofassociation.71
But this association is "fixed and dead"; the connection is
mechanical instead of organic. Fancy, moreover, plays with the
mere images or impressions of the sense, but imagination deals
with intuit ions.
Coleridge says in Biographia Literaria:
Milton had a highly imaginative, ~ o w l e y ,a very fanciful mind.72
The comparison is explained elsewhere:
You may conceive the difference in kindbetween the Fancy and the Imagination i n ~ sway, that i f the check of the senses and the
reason were withdrawn, the f i rs t would becomedelirium, and the las t mania.73
When fully checked by the senses and the reason, the mind in i t s
normal state uses both fancy and imagination. Discussing
Wordsworth's account of the two powers Coleridge clar i f ies the
function of each:
I am disposed to conJecture, that heWordsworth has mistaken the co-presenceof fancy and imagination for the operation
7 1 ~ . , I , p.202.
?2Biographia Literaria, I , p. 62.
?3Table Talk and Omniana, ed. by T. Ashe (London,l884),p.291.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
ot the l a t te r single. A man may work withtwo different tools at the same moment;each has i t s share in the work but the workeffected by each is very different. ?4
The same thought Coleridge states elsewhere in the following
passage:
Imagination must have fancy, in tactthe higher intel lectual powers can only actthrough a corresponding energy of the lower.?5
Indeed, the 0 counters 1 with which fancy plays a r ~ in themselves
images brought about by ear l ier acts ot perception--they have
been formed by ear l ier acts ot imagination but, when fancy only
is at work, these images are not being re-formed nor integrated
nor coadunated into new perceptions. To distinguish imaginatio
as a power that brings into one--an esemplastic power--and fane
as an assembling, aggregating power, a distinction must be drawn
trom examples. In several places Coleridge cal ls fancy
••• the faculty of bringing together imagesdissimilar in the main by one point or moreot likeness distinguished• .• 6
A further distinction is found in Biographia Literaria:
These images are fixi t ies and definites •••they remain when put together the same aswhen apart.??
In Table Talk, Coleridge speaks of the relation ot images thus
74Biograpbia Literaria, I , p. 194.
75Table Talk (April 20, 1833), p. 185.
76aaysor, op.ci t . , I , p. 212.
77
Vol. I , p. 202.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
metaphor i s l en t to the hand). But there the l inks stop. These
additions to the hand via the l i ly in no way change the hand (or,
incidentally, the l i l y ) . They in no way work upon our percep
tion of Adonis or his hand.n81
But when Shakespeare says:
So white a friend engir ts so white a foe82
he i s r is ing to the imaginative fo r the l ines bear a second sene
and with the second sense "there comes a reach, a percussion to
the meaning, a l ive connexion between the two senses and between
them and other parts of the poem consiliences and reverberat ions
between the feelings thus aroused."83
Then note the purely imaginative in :
Look! how a bright s tar shooteth from the skySo gl ides he in the night from Venus' eye.84
Coleridge says of the above l ines :
How many images and feelings are herebrought together without effor t and withoutdiscord--the beauty of Adonis--the rapidi tyof his f l ight-- the yearning yet helplessnessof the enamoured gazer--and a shadowy idealthrown over the whole.85
Richards explains Coler idge's in terpreta t ion of Shakespeare's
8lcf . Richards, ~ c i t . , p. 81.
82Ib id .
83Ibid.
84Ibid.
85Raysor, Shakespearean Criticism, 1 , p. 213 .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
imagination, Coleridge describes the poet as bringing
. . . the whole soul of man into act iv i ty .90
aut, i t must be remembered, the poet does th is ,
. . .with the subordination of i t s facult ies
to each other, according to their relat iveworth and dignity.91
out of this theory of the imagination grows one of Coleridge's
most characterist ic and powerful principles of cri t icism. He
continues:
This power, f i r s t put in action by thewill and understanding, and . retained underthe ir irremissive, though gentle and unnoticed, controul ( laxis effertur habenis)reveals i t se l f IN THE BALANCE OR RECONCILIA-
TION OF OPPOSITE OR DISCORDANT QUALITIES: ofsameness, with difference; of the general,with the concrete; the idea, with the image;the individual, with the representat ive; thesense of novelty and freshness, with old andfamiliar objects; a more than usual state of
emotion, with more than usual order; judgmentever awake and steady self-possession, withenthusiasm and feeling profound or vehement;and while i t blends and harmonizes the naturaland the ar t i f i c ia l , s t i l l subordinates a r t tonature; the manner to the matter; and ouradmiration 6 ~ the poet to our sympathy withthe poetry.
The principle of the Reconciliation of Opposites must be
distinguished from a superfic ia l ly similar formula which seems
to have been i t s forerunner, namely, the formula as a combinatio
90Ibid. , I I , p . 12.
91!£g .
92Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
In the foam-islands in a f iercelyboiling pool, a t the bottom of a waterfa l l , t ~ ~ r e is sameness from inf in i techange.
And again as he looks at the world i t becomes to him the expres
sion, half metaphysical, half concrete, of unity and variety:
And again:
Oh, said I , as I looked a t the blue,yellow-green and purple-green sea, witha l l i t s hollows and swells, and cut-glasssurfaces--oh, what an ocean of lovelyforms! And I was vexed, teased that thesentence sounded l ike a play of words!That i t was not. The mind within me wasstruggling to- ixpress the marvellous dist inctness and unconfounded personali ty ofeach of the millions of forms, and yet theindividual unity in which they s u b s i s t e d . ~ 8
The ribbed f lame--i ts snatches of 1m-patience, that half seem and only ~ to
baffle i t s upward rush, -- the eternal unityof individual i t ies whose essence is inthe i r d 1 s t 1 n g u 1 s h a b l e n e s s ~ even as thoughtand fancies in the m i n d . 9 ~
His very fondness for words that carry metaphysical concepts,
these pairs of opposites, formed the natural formulae for
Coleridge to use in defining any and every experience or phe-
nomena.
The Principle of Reconciliation of Opposites, therefore, is
9?Anima Poetae, p. 100.
98Ib1d.
99Ib1d.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
and was frequently posit ing the various elements of l i fe as
unions or opposites. Following logically upon his view of the
universe as a universe of unity embracing the inner and outer
senses and of a Divine that emanated i t se l f through a l l ap
pearance to the soul of man, then there must be some kind of
reconcilement between the inner world of sense and the outer
world of nature.
Upon this basic concept of the universe, Coleridge con
ceives of beauty.To
him the beauty of the visible world was adirect expression of the divine l i fe : the very mind of the
Creator expressed i t se l f to sense, therefore. Enjoyment of
beauty, although i t has a physical element, does not originate in
or stop with the senses, which are but physical media of appre-
The idea of unity as essential to beauty runs throughout
of Coleridge's aesthet ic . In a general statement he says
The beautiful , contemplated in i t s essentials ,that i s , in kind and not in degree, is tha tin w ~ 0 g h the many, s t i l l seen as many, becomesone.
One of the best examples that i l lus t ra tes his definition of
he multeity in unity i s that of the coach-wheel. He does not
pare deta i l s to make himself understood. Thus he says:
03
An old coach-wheel l ies in the coachmaker'syard, disfigured with ta r and di r t (I purposely
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Miscellanies, Aesthetic and Literary,
. by T. Ashe (London, 1885), p. 20.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
take the most t r iv i a l instances}:-- I f I turnaway my attention from these, and regard thefigure abstract ly , "s t i l l " , I might say tomy companion, "there i s beauty in that wheel,and you yourself would not only admit i t , butwould feel i t , had you never seen a wheel be
fore. See how the rays proceed from thecentre to the circumferences, and how dif ferent images are dist inct ly comprehended a tone glance, as forming one whole, and eachpart in some harmonious relat ion of each toal l . l04
Constantly throughout his crit icism of Wordsworth and the other
dramatists, the echo of Hharmonious re la t ion of each to all" i s
heard. But more specif ical ly , beauty involves the will and the
intel l igence and again Coleridge comes back to the object-subject
idea. Viewed as a product of the will , beauty has seven condi
tions or character ist ics . Knowledge of them i s essential to a
full understanding of many of his statements about the characters
of Shakespeare's plays, as well as the basic reasoning for his
criticism of Wordsworth and the other poets. These characteris-
t ics are:
1. The universal condition of Beauty in thebeaut i ful or the beautiful or beautyexciting object i s , that the Form of th isObject shall appear to be a product of anin te l l igent Will, not wholly or principally
as intell igence, but as Living Will causat ive , or rea l i ty : in other words, of Willin i t s own form as Will.
2. But Will may exis t in a form in which theIntell igence is not only subordinate butla ten t - - i .e . implied and to be inferred,
104Ibid. , p. 17.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
but not evident. In this sense i t i s ,that Life is a Will, a form of Corollary.The f i r s t is seen or fe l t with greatestfaci l i ty or rather i t is only seen withpleasurable faci l i ty when i t exists inconnection and in combination with the
second. Therefore every beautiful Objectmust have an association and a Life-- i tmust have Life in i t or at t r ibuted to i t - Life or Spontaneity, as an action of VitalPower.
3. The Beautiful, which demands the Spontaneous,forbids the arbitrary and as partaking ofthe arbi t rary, the accidental . For the arbi t rary is an exclusion of Intell igence.But
the Willcan
not appear in i t sown
formwithout Intell igence, contained though subordinated. Hence Life and Spontaneity wil lnot of themselves but only as Secondaries,constitute the Beautiful.
4. . •• The Manifold must be melted into theOne, and in a ll but the lowest or simplestProducts must be fe l t in the resul t ratherthan noticed--a beautiful Piece of Reasoning-not beautiful because i t is understood as
true; but because i t is fe l t , as a t ruth ofReason, i . e . immediate with the faculty ofl i fe .
5. . •• There must be a f i tness , indeed, for tobe unfi t is to contradict Intell igence orReason which are to be implied not opposed.
6.... Design must exis t in the equivalence ofthe resul t , Virtual Design without the senseof Design.
7• . . . The Fitness must not be a conspirationof component but of constituent Parts, notof parts put to each other, but of dis t inctbut indivisible parts growing out of a common
Antecedent Unity, or productive Life and Will.I t must be an organic not a mechanic f i tness. l05
105T. M. Raysor, "Unpublished Fragments on Aesthetics by S. T.
Coleridge", Publications of the ModernL a n ~ u a g e
Association,22:529-30 (October 1925 .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
and in a l l genuine creations of ar t theremust be a union of these disparates.l08
I t is the function of the ar t i s t or poet to balance and imitate
nature provided
there be l ikeness in the difference,difference in the likenessA and a recon-cilement of both in o n e . l O ~
This involves the technique of ar t . But the ar t i s t must fully
understand that he i s to imitate not copy. Coleridge stresses
again the meaning of beauty when he says:
We must imitate nature! yes, but what innature,--al l and everything? No, the beauti-fu l in nature. And what then is the beautiful?What i s beauty? I t i s , in the abstract , theunity of the manifold, the coalescence of thediverse; in the concrete, i t i s the union ofthe shapely (formosum) with the vi ta l . 10
However, Coleridge i s anxious that his hearers remember that we
must not copy mere nature, the natura naturata. With a feeling
of disgust , he recal l s Ciprani 's pictures which as he says
.• . proceed only from a given form.111
With precision he says:
Believe me, you must master the essence, thenatura naturans which supposes a bond betweennature in the higher sense and the soul ofman.ll2
108Ibid.
109Ibid . , p . 46.
110Ibid.
111Ib1d.112-Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
What place does the moral element play in Coleridge's
aesthetic? He defini tely says that nature 's wisdom is co-
instantaneous with the plan and the execution; nature has no
moral responsibili ty:
• .• the thought and the product are one,or are given at once; but is no ref lex act ,and hence there is no moral responsibili ty. 113
aut i t is for the genius in man to make a choice; he is capable
of ref lect ion and enjoys freedom:
Inman
there is reflexion, freedom, andchoice; he i s , thi1tfore , the head of thevisible creat ion.
And in his characterist ic manner, Coleridge describes the
"mystery" of the Fine Arts:
The objects of nature are presented,as in a mirror, a l l the possible elements,steps, and processes of in te l lec t antece-
dent to consciousness, and therefore to thefu l l development of the in te l l igent ia l act;and man's mind is the very focus of a l l therays of in te l lect which are scatteredthroughout the images of nature . l l5
With a l l ground fully prepared for the poet , i t is then through
freedom and choice that the poet must
place these images, to tal ized, and f i t ted
to the l imits of the human mind, as toe l ic i t from, and to superinduce upon, the
113Ibid . , p. 47.
114Ibid.
115Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
forms themselves the moral r l l ~ e x i o n s towhich they approximate• . .
Coleridge supposes, therefore, that every piece of a r t should be
imbued with a moral beauty, not moral in the sense of doctrinal
religious morality, but a natural quali ty which i s at t r ibuted to
man's in te l lec t ra ther than to his animal nature, the sensuous
appetites. For he says that i f a moral feeling is associated
with the pleasure
. . . a larger sweep of thoughts wil l be
associated with each enjoyment, and witheach thought will be associated a numberof sensations; and consequently, eachpleasure wil l become more the pleasure ofthe whole being.ll7
Romanticism i t se l f would put a moral value upon ar t . To
the romanticist , the "inner" consciousness is the essence of per-
sonality. Since i t is a part of the great oneness in nature, an
integral par t , therefore, of the sp i r i t of God, consequently, i t
is spir i tua l . The romanticist 's view of nature is nature not
primarily a part of the external and objective real i ty , but
nature as the outer or sense-form of the "inner" or spir i tua l
real i ty . Thus: "The ' inner ' being, in a l l and in any of i t s
terms, including Vernunft, finds i t s complete embodiment in
'Nature'. And in the same manner in which the individual ' soul '
or ' sp i r i t ' is an in tegral part of the ' soul ' or ' sp i r i t ' of God,
116Ibid.
p . 41.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
asserts original godliness.ull9 The laws that nature gives are
the only norms, therefore, and "the supreme authority and in
tegrity of impulse implies freedom from external, objective,
mediate motives or standards of t ruth and conduct. 11 120 The
mystery l ies in making
. . . the external internal , the in ternalexternal , . . . nature thought and thoughtnature . . . 121
Another keynote of Shakespeare's genius in the creation of
characters, Coleridge found was that
To the idea of l i fe , victory or s t r i feis necessary; as vir tue consists not simplyin the absence of vices, but in the overcoming of them.l22
The ar t i s t or poet must, furthermore,
. . . eloign himself from nature in order toreturn to her with fu l l effect . . . • He must
out of his own mind create forms according tothe severe laws of the in te l lect , in order togenerate in himself that co-ordination offreedom and law, that involution of obediencein the prescr ipt in the impulse to obey, whichassimilates h i m 1 ~ g nature and enables him tounderstand her.
But in te l lect alone does not consti tute a guide in the
technique of the poet. To in te l lect , Coleridge would add
119Ibid. , p. 283.
120Ibid.
121Miscellanies, p. 41.
122Ibid . , p. 52.
123
Ibid . , p . 48 .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
~sensibili ty. I t i s , he says, a •component part of genius.•124
In his lectures of 1811-12, he defines taste as
• • • an attainment af ter the poet hasbeen disciplined by experience, and hasadded to genius that ta lent by which heknows what part of his genius he canmake acceptable and in te l l ig ible to the
125portion of mankind for which he writes .
professor Muirhead writes on this point: 1 I t is a merit in eon
temporary writers on 1Taste 1 to recognize the place in a r t of
the emotional response which they called "sensibi l i ty" . Their
mistake was to interpret this as a form of self-feel ing. On a
view l ike Coleridge's the whole emphasis fe l l upon depth of
teeling, but i t was feeling for a .world in which the sel f in any
personal sense no longer occupied a place, but might be said,as
in love, to have 'passed in music out of sight• .• l26
Those who would appreciate the depth and subtlety of
Coleridge's philosophy ot beauty and his system of the a r t of
crit icism, must remember that philosophy and the principles of
crit icism which Coleridge is concerned with are, it is true,
concerned with theory, but 1 since the theory is of l i fe in a l l
i t s departments, it is concerned with will and feeling as well a
with in te l lec t . •127 All experience in that theory of l i f e ; mor
124Biographia Literar ia , I , p. 30.
125Coleridge's Shakespearean Criticism, ed. by T. M. Raysor,
II, p. 129.126
Op.eit . ,pp. 213-14.
12?Muirhead, o . c i t . , p . 213-14.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
.•• the whole secret of dramatic popularityconsists •.• in the confusion and subversionof the natural order of things, the ir causesand effects; in the excitement of surprise, byrepresenting the qual i t ies of l iberal i ty , re-
138fined feel ing, and a nice sense of honor . .•
Poetry in Coleridge's mind is always identif ied with
philosophy. I t is when he is dealing with concrete criticism of
works of a r t that he seems to forget that he is dealing with
abstract thought. Like Aristot le , Coleridge believed that the
aim of poetry should represent the universal through the part iou
lar to give a concrete and l iving embodiment to a universal
truth. This universal of poetry is not an abstract idea. I t is
part icularized to sense; i t comes before the mind clothed in the
form of the concrete, presented under the appearance of a l iving
organism whose parts are in vi ta l and st ructural relat ion to the
whole. Butcher concludes in his Aris tot le ' s Theor of Poetr
Fine Art 139 that although Coleridge adhered to Aris tot le ' s
theory in many respects , he, nevertheless, was careful to explain
that poetry as poetry is essential ly ideal . He himself s tates
this in the Biographia Literaria:
I adopt with fu l l fai th the theory ofAristotle that poetry as poetry is essen-t ia l ly ideal , that i t avoids and excludesa l l accident; that i t s apparent individ-ual i t ies of rank, character, or occupation,must be representative of a class; and thatthe persons of poetry must be clothed withgeneric at t r ibutes , with the common a t t r i -
~ 8 ~ . , p. 164.139
P. 183.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
butes of the class; not such as one giftedindividual might possibly possess, but suchas from his si tuat ion,
148 is most probable
that he would possess.
His at t i tude on this subject of universal and part icular is :
Say not that I am recommending abstrac-t ion, for these class characterist ics whichconstitute the instruct iveness o.f a characterare so modified and part icular ized in eachperson of the Shakespearean drama, that l i fei t se l f does not excite more dist inct ly thatsense of individuali ty which belongs to realexistence. . . . Aristotle has required ofthe poet an invo*ution of the universal inthe individua1.l 1
The differences are
. . . in geometry i t i s the universal t ruth,which is uppermost in the consciousness; inpoetry the i n d i v i ~ ~ ~ l form, in which thet ruth is clothed.
One is inclined to think that Coleridge here supposes the uni-
versal to be a single abstract t ruth. I t is a l l the truths that
are held within bounds of the individual. He stresses the fact
that although the poet i s dealing with the part icular , the "con-
crete fact which the poet uses is so changed that the universal
is represented by i t . "143
At times Coleridge's praise of poetic qual i t ies , his appre-
Ciation of unity, poetical imagery and harmony does not seem to
140Biographia Literar ia , I I , p. 33 . .
141Ibid.
142Ibid.
143As
quoted in Butcher, op.ci t . , p. 393.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
agree with his theory of the imagination. He conceives of
poetry as identif ied with philosophy when he views poetry thus
connected with philosophy as a sublime experience whose expres
sion is more or less independent and i r relevant to him. Ex-
perience of this nature is the f i r s t step in the poet 's creat ive
process; the imagination then becomes as Coleridge himselfsays i
the Anima Poetae
. . • the laboratory in which the f ~ ~ u g h telaborates essence into existence.
Experience is considered as a form of self-expression.
Coleridge distinguishes between observation and medttation. The
creation of characters on the part of Shakespeare was in some
sense self-expression; i t was meditation of his own nature and
then a reproduction, for he says:
. . . he had only to imitate certain partsof his own character, or to exaggerate suchas existed in possibi l i ty , and they were a t
once true to nature . • . some may think themof one form, and some of another; but theyare s t i l l nature, s t i l l Shakespeare, and thecreatures of his meditation.l45
Experiences within the poet Shakespeare afford the patterns , as
i t were, that convey the universal in l i f e . The poet f i r s t medi
tates upon the universal and then recreates i t and concentrates
i t in the individual. In his "Essay on Method" Coleridge says:
144p. 186.
145Powell, op. ci t . , p. 110.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
• • • the observation of a mind, which,having formed a theory and a system uponi t s own nature, remarks a l l things thatare examples of i t s t ruth, and, above a l l ,enabling i t to convey the t ruths ofphilosophy, as mere effects derived from,
what we may cal l , the outward watchingsof l i fe . l46
Characters in Shakespeare's plays were regarded by Coleridge as
•representations of abstract conceptions.ul47 Thus the univer-
sal became an idea. Of the idea Coleridge says
Shakespeare, therefore, studied mankind in
the Idea of the human race.l48This statement i s basic in his psychological method. Shake-
peare's drama then became "the vehicle of general truthnl49 and
a ll his characters have the primary purpose of expressing this
truth. Genius works by laws, not only those which regulate the
outer form of the poem or entire drama but others which are de-
pendent upon the
. . • external objects of sight and sound.l50
Shakespeare is a great dramatist simply because he possesses
knowledge of law
146s. T. Coleridge, "Essay on Method," The Friend (London, 1887),
p. 36.
147Powell, op.ci t . , p. 111.
148~ s quoted in Raysor, Shakespearean Criticism, ii, p. 344.
149Ibid.
150~ s quoted in Powell, op.c i t . , p. 113.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
. . • in the delineation of character, inthe display of Passion, in the conceptionsof Moral Being, in the adaptations ofLanguage, in the connection and admirablein ter texture of his ever- interest ing Fable. 151
.Art becomes then a "form of knowledge", a 11 store-house for b i t s
of rea l i ty" , 11 facts of mind". Shakespeare possessed th is " s t o r e ~house" fo r he knew the essent ia l 11 rea l i ty of things and deep
t ruths underlying human l i f e . 11 152 Shakespeare's poetry gained
Coleridge's admiration and eulogy not for the beauty of the
poetry i t se l f , but because Coleridge found init
these laws and
truths underlying l i f e i t se l f . The characters of Shakespeare's
plays exemplified the many experiences of rea l l i f e . Shawcross
summarizes a few instances of these when he says: "Constance's
personification of grief , in King John, i s jus t i f ied on the
ground tha t Coleridge had _heard a rea l mother ut te r similar
words--and that the passage therefore represented a ' f ac t of
mind 1 • 11153 In a similar way Shawoross says: "The character of
Romeo draws Coler idge's disser ta t ion upon the nature of love.ul54
"Wordsworth's Betty Foy i s an impersonation of ins t inct
abandoned by jud.gment. 11155 But such a theory natural ly led
151Ib id .
152Biographia Literar ia , I I , p. 350.
~ 5 3 I b i d . , I I , p. 36.
5 4 I b i d .5 5 I b i d .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Coleridge to look for a concept in every poem. The concept or
the reason for which the poem existed or from which i t was born,
,as an experience, a "fact o f mind", a "form of being." In this
case the experience is not regarded as emotional experience of
an individual, but as a peering into the very nature o f the uni
versal . This is Coleridge in theory. When he puts aside this
theoret ical at t i tude , his idea assumes emotion and passion. In
the hands of a poet experience is transformed into more vivid
real i ty by means of the poet 'sown
act of creation. Passion be
comes necessary before the experience becomes an experience of
the poet. The stronger the state of emotion becomes, the more
vivid the reflect ion becomes. This experience Coleridge called
the primary imagination. The poet whose sensibi l i ty is excited
by the beauty of the world about him adds to the object or ex
perience his own sympathetic emotion which arises in him during
the act of creation. When these experiences which are aroused or
created by nature, or when the passions, or the various accidents
of human l i fe are expressed in ordinary language by the man who
does not possess genius, that expression Coleridge would not con
sider a poem. To the powers of observation or the pure experi
ence something must be added: there must be a
. . . pleasurable emotion, that peculiars tate and degree of excitement, which arisesin the poet himself in the act of composit ion;--and in order to understand th is , we
must combine more than ordinary sympathy withthe objects, emotions, or incidents con
templated by the poet, consequent on a more
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
than common sensibi l i ty , with a more thanordinary act ivi ty of the mind in l S ~ p e c tof the fancy and the imagination.
Consequent upon this Coleridge says
. . . a more vivid reflection of the i s ~ t h sof nature and of the human heart . . .
is produced. The t ruths of nature and the human heart are the
experiences, the s tuf f of the poet 's imagination. Experience is
the
framework of object iv i ty , that defini tenessand art iculat ion of imagery, and that modification of the images themselves, withoutwhich poetry becomes f lattened into meredidactics of practice or e v a p o r a t ~ d into ahazy, unthoughtful, day-dreaming.l58
To this Coleridge would add the great secondary imagination
which superimposes or rather 11 fuses 11 passions which give a new
l i fe to the experience:
. .• passion, provides that neither thoughtnor imagery shall be simply object ive, butthat the passio vera of humanity shall warmand animate . • . 159
the images of the primary imagination. The poet with the aid of
the secondary imagination produces some new phase of the image
or thought of the primary imagination. Coleridge would have us
believe that in the state of emotion attendant upon creative
156Shakespearean Criticism, I , l!l· 163 . .
157Ibid.
158Ibid. , p. 166.
159
Ibid.-
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
genius, the poet stresses the individual experience hidden in
the universal experience of mankind. Poetry i s experience; i t
is experience of a rare individual. I t i s from th is point of
view that Coleridge cr i t ic izes Shakespeare, and from which
Shakespeare selects from history the individual characters that
possess that rare experience. Coleridge stresses more the ex-
perience than the idea. His definit ion of poet implies that the
secondary imagination i s the power that can recapture l iving
experiences:
The poet . . . brings the whole soul of man
into act iv i ty , with the subordination of i t sfacult ies to each other, according to the irrelat ive worth and dignity. He diffuses atone and a sp i r i t of unity, that blends, and(as i t were) fuses, each into each by thatsynthetic and magical power, to which we haveexclusively appropriated the name of imagina-t ion. This power, f i r s t put in action by the
wil l and understanding, and retained undertheir irremissive though gentle and unnoticedcontrol (laxis effer tur habenis) reveals i t -self in the balance or r e c o n c i l i a t i o n 1 ~opposite or discordant qual i t ies •• . -
Coleridge places experience a t the base of a l l true drama.
Every man's experience i s universal yet individual. The drama-
t i s t is not merely an observer; he probes the very root of the
experience, t races i t to the individual in the human being.
Therefore, to do th is the poet must meditate in order to dis-
tinguish passion from general t ruths when creating characters.
The characters of the play must contain a "living balance" for ,
as Coleridge maintains,
!60Biog.z=aohia LiterariA II n. 12.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
The heterogeneous united as in nature. Mistakes of those who suppose a pressure orpassion always act ing-- i t i s that by whichthe individual is distinguished from o!g!rs ,not what makes a separate kind of him.
consequently, i t i s not the poet 's business to analyze and
cri t ic ize the affections and fai ths of men. He must not in ter
pret in the l igh t of his own affections, but must ask, "Are thea
affections and emotions and truths true of every human nature? 11
This i s the cri ter ion by which Coleridge would tes t the genius o
Shakespeare or any other playwright. That Coleridge believedthat Shakespeare's characters were ideal and the creatures of
meditation is t rue, yet he maintained also that
• . • a jus t separation may be made of thosein which the ideal i s most prominent--wherei t i s put forward more intensely--where we aremade more conscious of the ideal , though int ruth they possess no more nor less ideal i ty;
and of those which, though equally idealised,the drsusion upon the mind i s of the i r beingreal . 2
The characters of Shakespeare's plays, as characters in rea l
l i fe , differ . I t is sometimes the real that i s disguised in the
ideal; sometimes the ideal hidden by the rea l . This difference
is obtained by the poet through his use of the different powers
or mind employed in the creation and presentation of character.
Among the real Coleridge class i f ies Shakespeare's his torica
161Shakespearean Criticism, I , p. 228.
162Ibid . , I I , p. 168.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
p l a Y S ~ In his tor ica l plays Coleridge required the following
essential characterist ics:
In order that a drama may be properlyhis tor ica l , i t is necessary that i t shouldbe the history of the people to whom i t i saddressed. In the composition, care mustbe taken that there appear no dramatic 1m-probabil i ty, as the reali ty is taken forgranted. I t must, l ikewise, be poetical; - that only, I mean, must be taken which isthe permanent in our nature, which i s common
163and therefore deeply interest ing to a l l ages.
The essent ia l unity basic in Coleridge's concept of drama i s not
gained in the his tor ica l play by the fusing of the ideal in the
real but i s
. . . of a higher order, which connects theevents by reference to the workers, gives areason for them in the motives, a ~ ~ presentsmen in the ir causative character. 4
Coleridge further distinguishes between the a r t that i s created
by the experience imagination and that which i s created by the
higher power and evinced by the secondary imagination when he
says pointedly:
163Ibid . ,
164Ibid . ,
165Ibid . ,
The dist inct ion does not depend on thequantity of his tor ica l events compared withthe f ict ions, for there i s as much history inMacbeth as in Richard, but in the relat ion ofthe history to the plot . In the purelyhis tor ica l plays, the history informs the plot ;in the mixt i t directs i t ; in the res t , as
M a c ~ ~ ' Hamlet, Cymbeline, Lear, i t subservesi t .
I ' p. 138.
P· 139.
P· 143.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
. . . merely for the purpose of giving agreater individuali ty and realness, as inthe comic parts of Henry IV.
1by presenting,
as i t were, our very selves. 66
Regarding the presentation of the character of Richard I I ,
Coleridge indicated tha t Shakespeare exercised the power of the
primary imagination:
Shakespeare has presented th is characterin a very peculiar manner. He has not madehim amiable with counter-balancing faul ts ;but has openly and broadly drawn those faul tswithout reserve, relying on Richard's disproportionate sufferings and gradually emergentgood qual i t ies for our sympathy; because hisfaults are not posit ive vices, but soringentirely from defect of character . lo7
Coleridge jus t i f ies Shakespeare's use of the pun in the his tor i -
cal drama by saying that i t is
•.• the passion that carries off i t s excessby play on words, as natural ly and, therefore,as appropriately to d f ~ ~ ' as by gesticulat ion,looks, or tones.
a ll of which are necessary adjuncts to the play. For a l l these
things belong, he reasons very logical ly,
166Ibid.
. . . to human nature as human, independent ofassociations and habits from any part icular
rank of l i fe or mode of employment; and16a th isconsists Shakespeare's vulgarisms •••
167Ibid . , p. 149.
168Ibid.
169Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
presentation of l i f e ' s experience requires the aid of the
audience. This aid will be obtained, Coleridge bel ieves, by the
theory of dramatic i l lusion.
In accord with his theory of dramatic ar t , Coleridge views
the stage not as a permanent mechanical structure. To him:
A theatre, in the widest sense of the word,is the general term for a l l places of amusementthro ' the ear or eye in which men assemble inorder to be amused by some entertainment pre-sented to a l l a t the same time . . • The most im-portant and dignif ied species of th is genus i s ,doubtless, the stage {res theatra l is his t r ionica) ,which, in addition to the generic defini t ionabove given may be characterized (in i t s Idea, oraccording to what i t does, or ought to , aim at)as a combination of several or of a l l the finearts to an harmonious whole having a dis t inct endof i t s own, to which the peculiar end of each ofthe component par ts , taken separately, i s madesubordinate and subservient, that namely, ofimitating Ideal i ty {objects, f ~ ~ i o n s , or passions)under a semblance of rea l i ty .
This is an idea l i s t ' s defini t ion of the stage. I t i s upon th is
stage of the "universal mind 11 1?6 that the great Shakespearean
characters as Coleridge singles them out pass in review. There-
fore, in order to hold the individual mind as the stage of l i f e ' s
individuals, mind must be put in the s ta te in which universal
truths and experience will best be seen and understood. This
state is equivalent to delusion created by a picture upon a
l i t t l e child. The picture gives real delight . The scene on the
175Ib id . , I , p. 199.
176Ibi<1·, p. 4.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
. • . the in terests of which are independentof a l l his tor ica l facts and associat ions, andarise from their f i tness to that faculty ofour nature, the imagination I mean, which owesno allegiance to time and place,--a species ofdrama, therefore, in which errors in chronologyand geography, no mortal sins in r g ~ species,are venial , or count for nothing.
The laws of the uni t ies would be a res t r ic t ion upon the fu l l
plaY of the imagination. The structure of the play is equiva
lent in Coleridge's mind to the growth of character and the
appropriate unity in that case would pervade the whole, attend
ant upon i t , balancing or posit ing the universal in past experi
encsor , as he cal ls them, •facts of mind". The romantic drama
appeals to the imagination. Anything exterior that might dis
turb the i l lusion or withdraw the mind from that inner realm
would destroy the essence of romantic drama for
•.• the excitement ought to come from within,-from the moved and sympathetic imagination;whereas, where so much i s addressed to the mereexternal senses of seeing and hearing, thespir i tua l vision i s apt to languish, and theat tract ion from without wil l withdraw the mindfrom the proper and only legitimate interestwhich is intended to spring from within. l8l
In other words, there must be a sublimation of the natural with
the spir i tual-- the s p i ~ i t u a l , we must remember, i s the union of
the individual with the universal, the contact with the l iving
nature or the natura naturans.
180Ibid . , p. 131.
181Ibid . , p. 132.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
I t is the laok of imagination in Ben Jonson that makes Coleridge
saY with disgust:
• • • he Ben Jonson oared only to observewhat was external or open to , and l ikely to
impress the senses. He individualizes, notso muoh, i f at al l , by the exhibition of 'moral or intel lectual differences, as by thevariet ies and contrasts of mannersA modes ofspeeoh and tr icks of temper. . . ~ 4
In the works of Beaumont and Fletcher, Coleridge points out the
laok of imaginative power. These two dramatists presented the
experiences of the primary imagination without the infused emo-tion:
••• these poets took from the ear and eye,unchecked by any intui t ion of an inward im-poss ib i l i ty ; - - jus t as a man might puttogether a quarter of an orange, a quarterof an apple, and the l ike of a lemon and apomegranate, and make i t look l ike one rounddiverse-colored f ru i t . 85
This to Coleridge is not drama because nature does not work in
that manner. Coleridge says:
. nature, which works from within by evolution and assimilation, according to a law,cannot do so, nor could Shakespeare; for hetoo worked in the sp i r i t of nature, by evolvingthe germ from within by the imaginative poweraccording to an idea.l86
Therefore, f i r s t of al l , drama must be essential ly real ; i t
184Mrs. Henry Nelson Coleridge, Lectures Upon Shakespeare, I I
(London, 1849), p. 39.
185Ibid.
186Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
must be a product of the imagination, that power which draws out
of the universal the individual, yet gives to the individual
something of the universal. Coleridge interprets Shakespeare's
dramatic characters according to the degree of experience and
imagination that consti tutes them. The reconciling and balancing
of extremes may create a mediocre character, but in comparing
Shakespeare's characters with Chaucer's, Coleridge finds that
Shakespeare's characters are the repre-sentatives of the interior nature of humanity,
in which some element has become so predominant ·as to destroy the health of the mind.l87
In noting the basic use of this theory in Coleridge's inter-
pretations, one is aware of a constant positing of opposites in
the building up of the characters. The dramatist must be able tc
distinguish the surface quali t ies from the essential ly ·inner
real i ty . He must not shape from his own individual person.
Coleridge charges Beaumont and Fletcher with such inconsistency.
Shakespeare, on the other hand, shaped or created his characters
187Ibid.
• .• out of the nature within; but we cannotso safely say, out of his own nature as anindividual person. No! th is l a t t e r is i t se l f buta natura naturata, an effect , a produot, not apower. I t was Shakespeare's prerogative to have
this universal, which i s potential ly in eachpart icular , opened to him, the homo generalis ,not an abstraction from observation of a varietyof men, but as the substance capable of endlessmodifications of which his own personal existencewas but one, and to use this one as the eye thatbeheld the other, and as the tongue that could
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
convey the discovery• . . Shakespeare, in com-posing, had not I , but the I representat ive.In Beaumont and Fletcher you have descriptionsof characters by the poet rather than thecharacters themselves; we are to ld , of thei rbeing; but we rare ly or never feel that they
actually are . l88
Sometimes the dramatic element in character consists of a
balance of imagination and experience. Often Shakespeare de-
velops character by the exclusion of one tendency and the
development of the other. Contrast brings out reciprocal t ra i t s
and
11 bymeans
ofthe contrast
the balance isestablished,
oppo-
si tes are created, and since they are par t of one ar t i s t i c unit ,
in a sense reconciled. 11189 Don Quixote and Sancho exemplify sue
contrast .
Don Quixote 's leanness and featurel inessare happy exponents of the excess of theformative or imaginative in him, contrasted
with Sancho's plump r o t ~ g g i t y , and recipiencyof external impression.
Imagination becomes the predominant force in Don Quixote.
Coleridge sees in him lack or knowledge of the sciences. Or, in
other words, experience is lacking and for tha t reason Don fa i l s
to see the invis ible in the world of the senses; he fa i led to
see l i f e in i t s symbolic forms. Consequently, Don creates for
188Mrs. H.N.Coleridge, op.c i t . , p. 45.
189Alice Snyder, op.c i t . , p. 40.
190H.N.Coleridge, Literary Remains (London, 1836), I , p. 117.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
himself a world of reali ty or a world of experience out of the
romances which he read. Coleridge affirms the necessity of ex-
perience for Don when he says of him:
. . • the dependency of our nature asks for someconfirmation from without, though i t be onlyfrom the shadows of other men's f ic t ions. l9 l
Therefore Don Quixote created a world for himself. The will was
active in the realm of the imagination where
Don Quixote's will lived and acted as a kingover the creations of his fancy!l92
On the other hand, Sancho represents common sense without the
modifying power of reason or imagination. Don Quixote is the
result of a complete lack of judgment and understanding. In the
creation of these two characters, Coleridge sees the defect in
the picture of the two men, for there is a need for both elements
in the well developed character. Coleridge gives this idea
clearly when he comments in his summary on Cervantes:
191Ibid. ,
192Ibid. ,
193 IIbid . ,
Cervantes not only shows the excellenceand power of reason in Don Quixote, but inboth him and Sancho the mischiefs resultingfrom a severance of the two main constituentsof sound intel lectual and moral action. Puthim and his master together, and they form aperfect in te l lect ; but they are separated and
without cement; and hence each having a needof the other for i t s own completeness, e r s ~has at times the mastery over the other.
p. 118.
p. 119.
P· 120.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
honest common sense accomplice,--but unhappilynot in the same person, and without the copulaof the judgment,--in hope of the substantialgood things, of which the former (the imagina-t ion) contempla.ted only the glory and the colours .197
But Sancho soon comes back to normal. He is soon cured of h is
seeking for the imaginative glory and his cure Coleridge notes it
• through experience.l98
Experience is one of the balancing effects . Sancho and Don
Quixote together would
.•• form a perfect in te l lect . • .199
The chief characterist ic of imagination is that i t i s 11 a l l -
generalizing11; the memory or the primary imagination i s •a l l -
particularizing". Coleridge says of the two:
Observe the happy contrast between theall-generalizing mind of the mad knight, andSancho's al l -part icular iz ing memory.200
Imagination works slowly under the guidance of Shakespeare'e
genius presenting the work of imagination upon his characters anc
in them. The audience is prepared slowly for the terror that i s
pervading Hamlet's imagination. Coleridge points out the way in
which imagination operates:
197Ibid . , p. 125.
198Ibid . , p. 126.
199Ibid . , p. 120.
200Ibid . , p. 127.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Compare the easy language of common l i fein which th is drama Hamlet opens, with thewild wayward lyr ic of the opening of Macbeth.The language is familiar: no poetic descript ions of night, no elaborate information conveyed by one speaker to another of what bothhad before the ir immediate perceptions. . . yetnothing bordering on the comic on the one hand,and no str iving of the in te l lect on the .other.I t is the language of sensation among men.201
Later in the play Horatio t ranslates the late individual specter
1nto thought and past experience and gains new courage. Hamlet's
inactivity is caused by an overbalance of imagination over
reason and in te l lect . In Hamlet Coleridge explains:
The effect of this overbalance of imaginationis beautiful ly i l lus t ra ted in the inward broodingof Hamlet--the effect of a superfluous act ivi tyof thought. His mind, unseated from i t s healthybalance, is forever occupied with the worldwithin him, and abstracted from external things;
~ ! s d r ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I : d a w ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ; ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ = ~ i t ~ ~ ~ . ~ 5 2Action was not, therefore, consequent upon Hamlet's thought.
I t is the nature of thought to be indefini te ,while definiteness belongs to reali ty.203
Hamlet makes several attempts, however, to escape from this in-
ward thought. Although the scene which follows the interview
with the ghost maY have been censured as eccentric on the part o
Shakespeare's genius, nevertheless, Shakespeare understood that
201shakespearean Criticism, I , p. 20.
202Ibid . , I I , p. 273.
203Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
. . . af ter the mind has been stretched beyondi t s usual pitch and tone, i t must either sinkinto exhaustion and inanity, or seek re l ie f bychange. Persons conversant with deeds ofcruelty contrive to escape from thei r conscienceby connecting something of the ludicrous with
them, and by inventing grotesque terms, and acertain technical phraseology, to disguise thehorror of the i r practices.204
Further, imagination fuses the comic and the t ragic ele-
ments of Shakespeare's characters. Coleridge reconciles the two
The terr ib le , however paradoxical i t may appearwill be found to touch on the verge of theludicrous. Both arise from the perception ofsomething out of the common nature of th ings , - something out of place: i f from th is we canabstract danger, the uncommonness aloneremains, and the sense of the ridiculous i sexcited.2o5
This supposition Coleridge derives from experience. He says:
The close all iance of these oppositesappears from the circumstance tha t laughteri s
equally the expression of extreme anguishand horror as joy: in the same manner thatthere are tears of joy as well as tears ofsorrow, so there i s a laugh of te r ror as wellas a laugh of merriment.206
Coleridge does not believe tha t Shakespeare introduced humour in
his tragedies merely for comic re l ief nor .for the sake of
exciting laughter in his audienae, but because comedy heightened
the t ragic . His fools are introduced merely to make the passion
204Ibid . , p. 274.
205Ibid .
206Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
of the play stand out in bolder re l ie f and thus to intensify the
t ragic element. Miss Snyder observes on th is point: "The fusio
of the comic and t ragic may be jus t i f ied by the psychological
effect produced on the audience by the contras t , or again by a
real , dramatic interaction between the t ragic and comic charac
ter."207
The theory of the imagination served Coleridge as a theory
not only for analysis of dramatic character and the fusion of
comic-tragic elements in Shakespeare's plays, but also as an
agent that produced the atmosphere in them. I t i s the prime
function of the imagination "to spread the tone". Coleridge com
menta frequently upon the harmony and unity of Shakespeare's
plays; the unity that exists between the characters and the ir
background, the unity of thought and action.
. the highest and the lowest charactersare brought together, and with what excellence!
• the highest and the lowest; the gayestand the saddest; he i s not drol l in one sceneand melancholy in another, but often both theone and the other in the same scene. Laughteri s made to swell the tears of sorrow, and tothrow, as i t were, a poetic l ight upon i t ,while the tear mingles tenderness with thelaughter.208
The keynote of Shakespearean drama is to make the audience laugh
and weep in the same scene. Underlying th is thought i s the
fusion of the ideal and the rea l , the unity of a l l the elements
of l i f e .
207
208snyder, op.ci t . , p. 49.
_ ~ h a k e s p e a r e a n Critiaiam7
I I , pp. 1 6 9 ~ 7 0 .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
To sum up the importance of experience and imagination in
Coleridge's concept of a play, i t must be remembered tha t he
considered each equally important in i t s own WaY. Experience
and imagination function in a well-rounded out character; each
must be judged from the standpoint of i t s function in the play.
Coleridge saw in the average contemporary plaY a predominance of
the experiential side of nature and l i f e ; i t lacked that ideal ,
imaginative element. Life and nature to Coleridge were, as has
been noted, the "manifold in one.n209
Throughout his cri t icism of Shakespeare and the other
English poets, Coleridge uses the principle of the Reconciliation
of Opposites not only as a means of metaphYsical abstractions,
but also as a scheme of st ructural analysis. In introducing the
third phase of th is chapter, technique or method, the meaning of
which for Coleridge implies great genius, his own words are most
significant:
209A hs e,
• • . Method. • . demands a knowledge of there la t ions which things bear to each other,or to the observer, or to the state and apprehension of the hearer. In a l l and each ofthese was Shakespeare so deeply versed, thatin the personages of a play, he seems ' to mold
his mind as some incorporeal material al ter -nately into a l l thei r various forms. 1 Inevery one of his various characters we s t i l lfeel ourselves communing with the same humannature. Everywhere we find individuali ty: nowhere mere por tra i ts . The excellence of hisproductions consists in a happy union of the
op.c i t . , p. 20.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
universal with the part icular . But theuniversal is an idea. Shakespeare, there-fore, studied mankind in the idea of thehuman race; and he followed out that ideainto a l l i t s var ie t ies , by a Method whighnever fa i led to guide his steps aright.210
This method involves the Principle of the Reconciliation of
Opposites and resul ts when the passive impression received from
external things or rea l i ty i s balanced by the internal act ivi ty
of the mind in reflect ing and generalizing.
Coleridge would at t r ibute to Shakespeare two methods, the
psychological and the poetical . Thus far in this thesis an a t-
tempt has been made to bring out the psychology and philosophy of
Coleridge's master cri t ic ism. These play, l ikewise, a part in
his technique. Of the poet ical method he maintains that i t
. . • requires above a l l things a prepon-derance of pleasurable feeling: and where
the in terest of the events and charactersand passions is too strong to be continuouswithout becoming painful , there poet icalmethod requires that there should be what
~ ~ ~ l = ~ = ~ a ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ' ; h ~ ~ s ; ~ a ~ a ~ i l : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l £ fIn th is statement Coleridge is defending Shakespeare against the
cr i t i cs . In a l l of Shakespeare's works Coleridge discerned
method, method in his moral conceptions, in his s tyle , and in thE
structure of his plays. With a tone of appeal to his hearers,
Coleridge bursts forth:
210Shakespearean Criticism, I I , Appendix, p. 344.
211Ibid . , p. 348.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
What shal l we say of his moral conceptions?Not made up of miserable clap-trap and the tagends of mawkish novels, and endless sermonizing;-but furnishing lessons of profound meditation tof ra i l and fa l l ib le human nature. He shows uscrime and want of principle clothed not with aspurious g r e a t n ~ ~ ~ of soul; but with a force ofin te l lect . • .
Othello, Lear, and Richard are instances of these moral pictures .
The t es t of greatness of Shakespeare's moral element in the p l a y ~is that the reader or spectator wil l ar ise
. a sadder and wiser man • . . 213
Shakespeare's
• sweetness of style . . . 214
Coleridge says, i s occasioned by the adaptation of language to tb
type of character presented:
Who, l ike him, could so methodicallysui t the overflow and tone of discourse to
character lying so wide apart in rank, andhabits , and peculiari t ies , as Holofernesand Queen Catherine, Falstaff and L e a r . ~ l 5
Of Shakespeare's fai lure to observe the unit ies , Coleridge comes
back to the fundamental ideas of his ent ire structure of cr i t i -
cism, when he says to the cr i t ics :
212Ibid.
213Ibid.
0 gentle cr i t i c ! be advised. Do not
t rus t too much to your professionalooxterityin the use of the scalping knife and tomahawk.
214Ibid.
215Ibid . , p. 349.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Weapons of diviner mould are wielded byyour adversary: and you are meeting himhere on his own peculiar ground, theground of idea, of thought, and of inspira-t ion. The very point of this dispute i s
ideal . . . . unity, as we have ~ ~ g w n , i s
wholly the subject of ideal law.
In the matter of technique Coleridge holds every principle
or theory regarding form secondary to the importance of subject-
matter. However, Shakespeare's .works are not devoid of a l l laws,
for i t i s evident from the form of his plays that perfect judg-
ment coupled with genius shaped them. Coleridge admits thatShakespeare's plays reveal many differences from those of his
contemporaries but these differences are addit ional proofs that
Shakespeare showed true poetic wisdom: they are
• .• resul ts and symbols of l iving poweras contrasted with l i fe less mechanism, offree and r iva l original i ty as contradis-
tinguished from servile imitat ion, or moreaccurately, (from) a blind copying ofeffects instead of a ~ l ~ e imitation of theessentia l principles .
Coleridge does not disregard rules , for he admits that genius
must be governed by rules even i f they do nothing more than
.•• unite power with beauty.218
Genius i s such that i t acts creatively under laws of i t s own
making. In fact , he states that genius must embody i t se l f in
216Ibid.
217Ibid . , I , p. 223.
218Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
torm in order to be presented to another--in order to reveal i t -
self . The form, however, must not be predetermined upon the
matter, for the matter will determine the form.
Coleridge, borrowing from Schlegel, distinguishes two kinds
of form, mechanical and organic. Mechanical form is that which
is not necessarily caused by the purpose or function of matter,
but tha t which i s pre-determined as a wet clay moulded into any
shape. Organic form, on the other hand, i s innate; form grows o1
necessity out of matter:••• i t shapes as i t develops i t se l f fromwithin, and the fulness of i t s developmentis one and the same with the perfect ion ofi t s outward form. Such i s the l i f e , suchthe form.219
Understanding the fundamental principles of Coleridge's theory,
the student wil l see this as a supposition in his technique.
Coleridge's bel ief in the Divine in nature as natura naturans
makes i t logical tha t
Nature, the prime genial ar t i s t , inexhaustiblein d i v e ~ ~ e powers, is equally inexhaustible informs.2
Consequently, the forms of poetry, the expressions of thought,
will each have an original form--and this implies imitat ion. For
. . • each exterior is the physiognomy of thebeing within, i t s true image ref lected andthrown out from the concave mirror.221
219Ibid . , p. 224.
220Ibid.
221Ibid .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
To investigate the true nature and foundation of poetic proba
bi l i ty , i t is necessary that each form be examined as to what i t
is to serve: in other words, to study the end or aim of dramatic
poetry. Dramatic poetry i s not to present a copy, but an imita
tion of real l i f e . In order to bring about that "suspension of
disbelief" or, in other words, to create the atmosphere of i l l u
sion the dramatist must avoid anything tha t may dis turb, such as
harshness, abruptness and improbability. Shakespeare was there
fore careful to avoid these disturbing qual i t ies . Everything
was tempered to the feelings of h is audience.
Coleridge lays down no hard and fas t laws for the dramatist.
Perfectly in harmony with the subtle imaginative element in his
system of crit icism, Coleridge at t r ibuted to Shakespeare
Expectation in preference to surprise • . .
As the feel ing with which we s ta r t le a t ashooting s tar , compared with that of watchingthe sunrise a t the pre-established moment, suchand so low i s surprise compared with expectation.222
Coleridge points out several instances where Shakespeare prepares
his audience for the appearance of a character or a si tuat ion or
an incident . The audience i s made to re- l ive the experience.
The storm in The Tempest i s a preparation for what follows. The
ta le i t se l f serves to develop the main character of the play; the
heroine i s charmed into sleep in such a manner that Ariel ' s
222Ibid . , p. 225.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
. • • the moral feel ing called forth by thesweet words of Miranda, 'Alack, what troublewas I then to you! ' in which she consideredonly the sufferings and sorrows of her
father, puts the reader in a frame of mindto exert his imagination in favour of anobject so innocent and interesting.223
Again in speaking of the manner in which the lovers are
introduced, the same quality is noted:
The same judgment i s observable inevery scene, s t i l l preparing, s t i l l inviting,
ands t i l l
grat i fying, l ike a f inished pieceof music.224
This unity of feeling is a mark of Shakespeare's genius,
character is t ical ly manifested in Romeo and Ju l ie t . Art i s a
thing of growth and l ike a l l forms of growth i s slow. The
growth of the sunrise i s analogous to building meanings out of
truths that foreshadow them.
Most remarkable in technique i s the f i r s t scene of The
Tempest:
The romance opens with a busy sceneadmirably appropriate to the kind of dramaand giving, as i t were, the keynote to thewhole harmony .. I t prepares and in i t ia testhe excitement required for the entirepiece, and yet does not demand anything fromthe spectators, which the i r previous habitshad not f i t ted them to understand. I t i sthe bustle of a tempest, from which the rea lhorrors are abstracted; therefore, i t i s
223Ibid . , I I , p. 175.
224Ibid . , I I , p. 178.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
poet ical , though not in s t r ic tness , natural-(the dist inct ion to which I have so oftenalluded)--and i s purposely restrained fromconcentering the in teres t on i t se l f , but usedmerely as ~ ~ 5 i n d u c t i o n or tuning for what i sto follow.
Coleridge says of the second scene that it i s
. . . retrospective narration.226
Prospera's speeches before the entrance of Ariel excite immediat•
interest and give the audience a l l the information necessary for
the understanding of the plot . In th is scene in which Prospero
te l ls the t ruth to his daughter, there i s a reconcilement of the
possible repulsiveness of the appearance of the magician in the
natural , human feelings of the father. The moment chosen by the
dramatist to reveal the tenderness of Miranda for her father was
timely, for Coleridge notes:
. . .i t would have been los t in directcontact with the agi ta t ion of the f irs ' t
scene.22?
Another mark of dramatic sk i l l is shown in the introduction
of the subordinate character ' f i rs t . In Hamlet, he comments on
the King's speech:
225Ibid . ,
226Ibid . ,
227Ibid . ,
228
Ibid . ,
Shakespeare's a r t in introducing a most
i m p o r t ~ ~ ~ but s t i l l subordinate characterf i r s t .
I , p. 132.
p. 132.
P· 133.
p. 22.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
The play must have re l ie f , but that re l ie f must be gained
without destroying the atmosphere or unity of feeling. In Act I
scene i i , th is comment is found:
Relief by change of scene to the royalcourt. This ( re l ief is desirable) on anyoccasion; but how judiciotis that Hamletshould not have to take up the leavings ofexhaustion. . . 229
Moreover, the dramatist must not introduce many different
characters a t the same time in the same scene portraying them
suffering under the same emotions. Coleridge cr i t ic izes the incident in Act IV, scene v of Romeo and Ju l ie t , in which Ju l ie t
is supposed to be dead:
Something I must say on th is scene--yetwithout i t the pathos would have been ant ic i -pated. As the audience knew that Jul ie t isdead, th is scene is perhaps excusable. At a l levents i t is a strong warning to minor drama
t i s t s not to introduce a t one time manydifferent characters agitated by one and thesame circumstance. I t i s di f f icu l t to understand what effect , whether that of pity orlaughter, Shakespeare meant to produce--theoccasion and the characterist ic speeches areso l i t t l e in harmony: ex. grat ia , what theNurse says is excellently suited to the Nurse'scharacterA
3But grotesquely unsuited to the
occasion.G
Unity must be divers if ied. Of the dialogue in Act I I I , scene i i
Coleridge remarks:
One and among the happiest (instances) of
2 2 9 ~ . , P• 22.
230Ibid . , p. 11.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Shakespeare's power of diversifying thescene while he is carrying on the plot.231
No mere irrelevant incidents must be introduced into the
plot . In Act IV, scene vi of Hamlet, a l e t te r is brought in ex
plaining the capture of Hamlet by the pira tes . On th is incident
Coleridge's comment is :
Almost the only play of Shakespeare, inwhich mere accidents, independent of a l l will ,form an essential par t of the plot.232
Character must dominate over plot . Nor does the main interest
of the play l i e in the story alone. Men in a l l the ir t ruth must
appear as men. For he says:
we should l ike to see the man himselr.233
But men are to be considered as l iving and the ir natures are to
be inferred by a round about method:
I f you take what his friends say, you maybe deceived--s t i l l more so, i f his enemies;and the character himself sees himself thro 'the medium of his character, not exactly as i tis .234
The dramatist, furthermore, must be consistent in the de
velopment of characters; they must be people who walk on the
11h1ghroad of l i fe" . Contradictions in habits , feel ings , emo-
t ions, in a character are not found in Shakespeare, for with him
231Ibid . , p. 30.
232Ibid. , p. 35.
233Earl Leslie Griggs, The Best of Coleridge (New York, 1934),
p. 342.
234Ibid . , p. 343.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
. . • there were no innocent adulteries; henever rendered that amiable which religionand reason taught us to detest ; he neverclothed vice in the garb of virtue, l ikeBeaumont and Fletcher, the Kotzebues of hisday: his fathers were aroused by ingrati tude,
235his husbands were stung by unfaithfulness. . .
This idea is in keeping with Coleridge's idea of reali ty and an
application of his concept of imitation. The dramatist must por
tray men and women whose affections are closely connected with
character portrayal and unity of feeling is the importance of
language. There are many instances in which Coleridge commentson the perfect harmony or adaptation of the language to the
character. This character is t ic he notes in Hamlet, in Lear and
in Macbeth. Although Coleridge advocated care and nicety in the
expression of a dramatist , he would never admire a pedantic
st i f fness or ar t i f ie ia l i ty of s tyle . In his lectures of 1811-12,
Coleridge defines poetry as
••• an a r t (or whatever better terms ourlanguage may afford) of representing, inwords, external nature and human thoughtsand affections, by the production of as muchimmediate pleasure in parts , as is compatiblewith the l a r g e ~ t sum of pleasure in the whole.236
Words were l iving for Coleridge; they were mediums through which
human affections were reproduced for others to enjoy. Pleasure
must accompany the poetic experience. This is the aim of poetry,
and each part of the poem must in i t se l f add to the composite
235Ibid. , p. 346
236
Shakespearean Criticism, I I , pp. 66, 67.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
l ines, which would be worthy of admirationin an impassioned elegy, or a short indig-nant sat i re , would be a blemish and proofof vi le tas te in a tragedy or an epic poem.2Z7
Indeed, Coleridge firmly asser ts that
. . • passion provides that neither thoughtnor imagery shal l be simply object ive, butthat the passio ver-a of humanity shal l warmand animate both.238
This l as t statement is what explains the language or
Shakespeare. Sometimes the language shows deep imaginative
power, sometimes i t i s purely fancy. Of Fielding, Coleridge
notes:
. . . in a l l his chief personages, Tom Jonesfor instance, where Fielding was not directedby observation, where he could not ass is thimself by the close copying of what he saw,where i t i s necessary that something shouldtake place, some words be spoken, some objectdescribed, which he could not have witnessed
(his soli loquies for example, or the interviewbetween the hero and Sophia Western before thereconcil iat ion) and I w i ~ l venture to say,. . . that nothing can be more forced and un-natural: the language i s without vivacity orsp i r i t , the whole matter i s incongruous andtotal ly dest i tute of psychological truth.239
On the other hand, Coleridge finds in Shakespeare's charac-
ters a perfect f i tness of language to the dramatis personae.
But his question i s : How was Shakespeare to observe the language
or Kings and Constables or those of high or low rank? I t was
237Ibid . , I , p. 164.
238Ibid . , p. 166.
239Ibid . I I , p. 135.- - '
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
the inward eye of meditation upon his ownnature.240
Thus for the time Shakespeare
became Othello, and spoke as Othello, insuch circumstances, must have spoken.241
The language thus spoken is the language of passion. In Romeo
and Ju l ie t the poet i s heard. Likewise, Capulet and Montague
are mere mouthpieces of Shakespeare. Shakespeare
not placed under circumstances of excitement,
and only wrought upon by his own vivid andvigorous imagination, writes a language tha t in-variably and intui t ively b e c o m e ~ the conditionand position of each character.242
Coleridge admits that there is a language that i s not descrip-
t ive of passion and which at the same time i s poetic . I t i s the
language of fancy. I t i s the language of the poet speaking
rather than that of the dramatist . But Coleridge would s tress
the fact that when a thought or expression i s not usual i t must
not necessarily be considered unnatural.
The dramatist
represents his characters in every s i tuat ionof l i fe and in every s tate of mind, and there
is no form of language that may not bein tro-
duced with effect by a great and judiciouspoet, and yet be most s t r ic t ly according tonature.243
240Ibid . , p. 136.
241Ibid.
242Ibid. , p. 137.
243Ibid. , p. 139.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
In the lectures of 1811-12, when discussing Hamlet,
Coleridge points out:
Here Shakespeare adapts himself so admirably
to the si tuat ion-- in other words so put himself into i t - - tha t , though poetry, hislanguage i s the very language of nature.. . . No character he has drawn, in the wholel i s t of his plays could so well and f i t lyexpress himself, as in ~ ~ 4 language Shakespearehas put into his mouth.
When language has meter added to i t , the pleasure derived
from i t i s doubled. In the Biographia Literar ia , Coleridge
explains a t length the origin and elements of meter.
Again Coleridge uses his principle of the Reconciliation of
Opposites when he gives the f i r s t cause or origin of meter as:
• . . the balance in the mind effected bythat spontaneous effor t which str ives tohold in check the workings of passion.245
Out of th is reasoning, two conditions necessary to effect recon
c i l ~ a t i o n present themselves:
Firat , tha t , as the elements of metre owe
the ir existence to a sta te of increasedexcitement, so the metre i t se l f should beaccompanied
2i6 the natural language of
excitement. ·
Butthese elements are brought about
by avoluntary act with the
aim of balancing emotion and delight and must be fe l t in the
metrical language. These two conditions must be reconciled:
244Ibid. , p. 193.
245Griggs, op.ci t . , p. 207.
246Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
There must be not only a partnership,but a union; an interpenetration of passionand of will , of s p ~ 2 ~ a n e o u s impulse and ofvoluntary purpose.
such an interpenetration creates picturesque and vivid language
which would be unnatural under circumstances other than those
accompanying th is poetic fusion. The reader expects picturesque
language because the emotion is voluntari ly encouraged for the
pleasure that ensues. But th is is conditional. Meter, moreover
is an indication of the pulse of the passion.' The very act of
poetic composition produces an unusual s ta te of excitement which
brings with i t a difference in language from the everyday prose
of experience. Thus,
Strong passions command figurativelanguage and act as stimulants.248
But the most essential function of meter, the one which brings
out the true essence of poetic power and that essential unity
inherent in nature and in the poet, Coleridge describes as
•.• the high spir i tua l inst inct of thehuman being impelling us to seek unity byharmonious adjustment and thus establish-ing the principle tha t a l l the parts of anorganized whole must be assimilated
24a the
more important and essential par ts .
Then, in perfect harmony with his entire system of thought,
Coleridge returns to the dist inct ion between copying and
247Ibid .
248Shakespearean Criticism, I , p. 206.
249Biographia Literar ia , I I , p. 56.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
from the nature of man; ref lect ing minds wil lpronounce i t arrogance in them thus to announce themselves to men of lettersA as theguides of thei r taste and judgment.G55
False standards of crit icism grew out of the changing
standards of l i f e . The causes of false cr i t ic ism, Coleridge
alleges, were accidental and permanent. Chief among these acci
dental causes was the over-stimulation of mind brought on by
current events of pol i t ical s t r i fe . I t was an age in which e v e r ~one t r ied to play cr i t ic :
. . .the greater desire of knowledge, be t te r
domestic habits , which yet, combining withthe above, make a hundred readers where acentury ago there were one, a n ~ 5 g f everyhundred, f ive hundred cr i t ics .
The permanent causes of false crit icism arose from the
. general principles of our nature.257
Man is re luctant and indifferent to the cult ivat ion of his
thinking powers. He neglects the use of his own
inward experience in the in terpretat ion ofthe ar ts a n ~ 8 t a k e s too readily the opinionsof others.2
England was beginning to feel the necessity of breaking away
from a t radi t ion of meaningless rules . However, rules were not
entirely abolished, but the cr i t i c was becoming an interpreter
255I 4p . 4 .
256Shakespearean Criticism, I , p. 248.
257Ibid.,, I I , p. 57.
258Ibid .
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
feel ing ' , a passion shared by Flaubert.n279 By his at t i tude
Coleridge stimulated the establishment of dis t inc t meanings of
terms which influenced even nineteenth century thought.
Although Coleridge wrote exquisite poetry af ter 1799, his
in teres t was centered in aesthetics and philosophy. He was very
fragmentary and, consequently, never finished his many projected
schemes. The only finished work was the t ranslat ion of
Wallenstein. Miss Helmholtz claims that " if he had not taken up
the role of public lec turer , i t i s safe to say that England wouldbe without a body of l i te rary crit icism of which the vi ta l in
fluence or thought-engendering power cannot be questioned.n280
I t was through the influence of Sir Humphrey Davy tha t
Coleridge delivered his lectures at the Royal Inst i tut ion in the
winter and spring of 1808. Henry Crabbe Robinson has preserved
these lectures in his Diary and two le t te rs which he wrote to
Mrs. Clarkson. I t i s necessary to remember that Coleridge had
to attack neo-classical prejudices which kept Shakespeare from
his true place among dramatists. In his Lectures of 1811-12,
Coleridge states defini te ly his purpose:
I t has been stated from the f i r s t that one ofmy purposes in these lectures i s to meet andrefute popular objections to part icular p o i n t ~ 8 1in the works of our great dramatic poet . . .
279As quoted in Isaacs, o p . c i ~ . , p. 90.
2 8 ~ e l m h o l t z , op.c i t . , p. 291.
28lshakespear.ean Criticism, I I , p. 184.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
a l l his English and German predecessors in Shakespearean cr i t i -
cism. u291
Coleridge borrowed from S c ~ l e g e l the argument which played
a prominent part in his Shakespearean cri t ic ism. This argument
is the dis t inct ion between Greek classical and Shakespearean
romantic drama. His chief dist inct ion was that "even though
Greek tragedy appealed part ly to the reason, it was forced to
accommodate i t se l f to the senses, while romantic drama appealed
direct ly to the reason and imagination.n292 His explanation of
the argument indicates that the dramatist must be allowed freedon·
in the use of the unit ies :
The reason is aloof from time and space;the imagination has an arbitrary control overboth; and i f only the poet have such power ofexciting our internal emotions as to make uspresent to the scene in imagination chiefly,he acquires the r ight and privi lege of usingtime and space as they exist in the imaginationobedient only to the laws which the imaginationworks by.293 .
The ant i thesis between romantic and classic affects not
only the three unit ies but every phase of dramatic method.
"Shakespeare's profound interest in individual personali ty, over
and above ·the needs of the action and sometimes perhaps at the
expense of the action; the r ich lyr ica l suggestiveness of his
291Ibid . , p. xxxix-xl.
292Ibid . , p. x l.
293Shakespearean Criticism, I , p. 198.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
while he was s t i l l young and possessed poetic genius; Coleridge
wrote the Biographia Literar ia when his poetic genius had waned
and youth had also departed.
Although the Biographia Literar ia i s the principal document
in which Coleridge reveals his loss, "Dejection: an Ode 11 i s a
passionate self - revelat ion. The tone of sad regret contrasts
with Wordsworth's Prelude:
There was a time, though my path was rough,This joy within me dall ied with distress ,And a l l my misfortunes were but as the s tuffWhence Fancy made me dream of happiness:For hope grew round me, l ike the twining vine,And f rui ts and fol iage, not my own, seemed mineBut now aff l ic t ion bows me down to earth:Nor care I that they rob me of my mirth;But oh! each vis i ta t ionSuspends what nature gave me a t my bir th ,My shaping sp i r i t of imagination.For not to think of what I needs must fee l ,But to be s t i l l and pat ient , a l l I can;
And haply by abstruse research to stealFrom my own nature a l l the natural manThis was my sole resource; my only plan:Ti l l that which sui ts a part infects the whole
0nd now is almost grown the habi t of my soul.3 5
Coleridge had a remarkable abi l i ty to inspire friendship anc
devotion. Soon af ter his entrance into Chris t ' s Hospital, he
formed a friendship with Charles Lamb which lasted unt i l his
death. Since they were of opposite temperaments, they stimulated
each other. Coleridge possessed the stronger in te l lect , yet the
l ight humor of Charles Lamb acted as an inspiration to his
305samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Complete Poetical Works, ed. byE. H. Coleridge (Oxford, 1912), I , p. 48.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
wished to publish were various poems not contained in Lyrical
Ballads, the second edit ion of his Juveni le Poems, and the
Remorse308
which he had enlarged with some revisions in plot and
character. Besides these were a proposed general Preface and a
par t icu lar Preface to the "Ancient Mariner." Again in October,
1815, Coleridge wrote:
All my le isure Hours I have devoted to theDrama, encouraged by your Lordship's adviceand favourable opinion of my comparativepowers among the t ragic Dwarfs, which exhausted Nature seems to have been under thenecessity of producing since Shakspear.Before the th i rd week in December I sha l lI t rus t be able to transmit to your Lordshipa Tragedy, in which I have endeavoured toavoid the faul ts and deficiencies of theRemorse, by a bet te r subordination of thecharacters , by avoiding a duplici ty ofIn teres t , by a greater clearness of Plot ,and by a deeper Pathos. Above a l l , I havelabored to render the Poem a t once t ragic
and dramatic.309
Dire necessi ty made Coleridge real ize that modern drama re -
quired more than character-analysis . I t needed plo t , and a
simple in teres t together with a deeper feel ing. Necessity drove
him to attempt drama-writing although his sympathies were not
with the acted play. In the same l e t t e r Coleridge comments on
his proposed plan of writing his tor ical plays:
08In her ar t ic le , "Wordsworth's Relation to Coleridge's Osorio",
Hamilton points out connections between Osorio and threecharacter is t ic poems by Wordsworth-- 11 The Id io t Boy 11 , "The Blind
Boy", and 11 Ruth. 11
09Griggs, 11 Coleridge and Byron", p. 1089.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
During my stay in London I mentioned to Mr.Arnold or Mr. Rae my intention of presentingthree old plays adapted to the present stage.The f i r s t was Richard the Second--perhaps themost admirable of Shakespeare's his tor ica lplays, but from the length of the speeches,
the entire absence of female Interest , and(with one splendid exception) i t s want ofvisual effect the leas t representable in thepresent s tate of postulate of the stage.310
Here i s Coleridge's more pract ical idea concerning the stage.
I t was more of a condescension than his sincere views on essen-
t i a l s of true drama. Two other intended adaptations are
mentioned:
. . . The second play which I mentioned toMr. Arnold, and I believe to Mr. Rae, was
B and F 's Pilgrim--this I had determinedto rewrite almost entirely , preserving theoutl ine of the Plot ; and the main charactersand to have la id the scene in Ireland; andto have ent i t led i t Love's Metamorphoses . . • .
But the third was that , on which I not onlyla id
the greateststress,
andbui l t most
hope, but which I have more than half written,and could complete
3t£ less than a month, was
the Beggar's Bush.
Of the l as t play Coleridge, character is t ic of his love of preach
ing, says:
. I was struck with the application ofthe Fable to the Present Times.312
Zapola, a romance, was rejected by the Drury Lane
310Ibid.
311Ibid . , p. 1090.
312Ibid.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Hamilton, Marie Padgett . "Wordsworth's Relation to Coleridge'sOsorio", Studies in Philology, 34:429-43? (July, 193?).
Haney, John Louis. A Bibliography of Samuel Taylor Coleridge.Philadelphia, 1903.
Hazli t t , William. "Lectures on the English Poets", Works.Vol. V. London, 1890.
Hegel, George Wilhelm Friedrich. The Introduction to the H i s t ~of Fine Art. Translated with notes and prefatory essay byB. Bosanquet. London, 1905.
Herrick, Marvin Theodore. "The Poetics of Aristotle inEngland", Cornell Studies in English, 1?:141-14? (New Haven,1930).
Howard, Claud. Coleridge's Idealism: A Study of i t s Relationship to Kant and to the Cambridge Platonis ts . Boston, 1924.
Helmholtz, Anna Augusta. "The Indebtedness of Samuel TaylorColeridge to August Wilhelm Von Schlegel", Bullet in of theUniversity of Wisconsin, Philological and Literary Series ,3:2?3-3?0. June, 190?.
J . "Coleridge's Crit ical Terminology", Essays andStudies by Members of The English Association. Oxford, 1936.
Kaufman, P. "The Reading of Southey and Coleridge; The Recordof Their Borrowings from the Bris tol L i b r a r y ~ 1?93-1?98 11
,
Modern Philology, 21:31?-320 (February, 1924;.
Kingsmill, Hugh. 11 Samuel Taylor Coleridge", The English Review,59:53-58 (July, 1934).
Knight, William Angus. C o l e r i ~ e and Wordsworth in the WestCountry, Their F r i e n d s h i p ~ ~ r k , and Surroundings. London,1913.
Emile and Cazamian, Louis. A History of English Crit i cism. New York, 1930.
Lehman, Benjamin H. "A Paragraph Deleted by Coleridge", ModernLanguage Notes, 39:58-59 (January, 1924).
Lovejoy, A. 0. "On the Discrimination of Romanticism", Publicat ions of the Modern Language Association. XXXIX, (1924),229-54.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
Shearer, Edna Aston. "Wordsworth and Coleridge Marginalia in acopy of Richard Payne Knight's Analytical Inquiry into thePrinciples of Taste", Huntington Librar l guarter l l , 5:63-99(California, 1937).
Sherwood, Margaret, Coleridge's Imaginative Conception of theImagination. Wellesley, 1937.
- - - - - Undercurrents of Influence in English Romantic Poetrz.Wellesley, 1935.
Snyder, Alice D. "Coleridge's Cosmogeny: a Note on the PoeticWorld-View." Studies in Philologz. 21:616-625 (October,1924).
- - - - - "A Note on Coleridge's Shakespeare Criticism 11, Modern
~ a n g u a g e Notes, 38:23-31 (January, 1923).
- - - - - "Books Borrowed by Coleridge from the Library of theUniversity of Gattingen 11
, 25:377-80 (February, 1928).
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C
- - - - - "Coleridge's Reading of Mendelsohn's 'Morgenstunden' and'Jeru.salem' . " Journal of English and German Philology,28:503-517 (October, 1929).
- - - - - "Coleridge's Theory of Life", Modern Language Notes, 47:
299-301 (May, 1926).
- - - - - The Principle of the Reconciliation of Opposites. Ann
Arbor, 1918.
Spingarn, J . E. "A Note on Dramatic Criticism 11, Essays and
Studies by Members of the English Association. Oxford, 1909.
Stokoe, F. W. German Influence in the Epglish Romantic Period,1788-1818. Cambridge, 1926.
Symons, Arthur. The Romantic Movement in English Poetry.London, 1909.
Taylor, w.· F. Crit ical Annotations of Samuel Taylor Coleridge;Being Marginal Notes Inscribed inVolumes Formerly in thePossession of Coleridge. Harrow, 1889.
Thompson, Frank T. "Emerson's Indebtedness to Coleridge",Studies in PhilolQgl, 23:55-76 (January, 1926).
Wordsworth, William. The Complete Poetical Works, CambridgeEdition, New York, 1904.
Wylie, Laura Johnson. Studies in the Evolution of EnglishCr_!ticism. Boston, 1894.
7/28/2019 Coleridges Idea of the Drama as the Basis of His Shakespearean C