A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe, from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 3 (of 3), Modern criticismSaintsbury, George
History
A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe, from the earliest texts to the present day. Volume 3 (of 3), Modern criticism
Saintsbury, George
Criticism -- History; Literature -- History and criticism; Literature, Medieval
Nor must the _Letters_[418] be omitted in any sufficient survey of
Coleridge’s criticism. That at one early period[419] he apparently
thought Schiller more sublime than Milton is not in the least to his
discredit. He was twenty-two; he was, I think, demonstrably in love with
_three_ ladies[420] at once, and extremely uncertain which of two of
them he should marry—a state of mind neither impossible nor unnatural,
but likely to lead to considerable practical difficulties, and to upset
the judgment very decidedly. His minor critical remarks at this very
time on Southey’s poems are excellent. That Bowles should be “divine”
and Burke “sad stuff”[421] does not matter—we can explain both
statements well enough. But how many men of three- or four-and-twenty
(or for that matter of three- or four-and-seventy) were there, are
there, have there ever been, who could ask, “Why pass an _Act of
Uniformity_ against poets?”[422] one of the great critical questions of
the world, and never, so far as I remember, formulated so pertinently
before. It is odd that he should have forgotten (if he knew) Sidney, in
his singular and pedantic complaint that to give the name Stella to a
woman is “unsexing” it, and his supposition that “Swift is the
authority.”[423] But another astonishing critical truth is that “Poetry
ought not always to have its _highest_ relish”;[424] and yet another in
the contrast[425] of himself with Southey, “I think too much to be a
poet; he too little to be a great poet,” unjust as the application is in
the first half; and yet again on metre itself “_implying_ a
passion,”[426] a passage worth comparing with, and in some points better
than, the _Biographia_ (with which compare also pp. 386, 387). Nor these
alone, but many others later—the criticism on Wordsworth’s “Cintra”
pamphlet;[427] that on the inadequacy of one style for all
purposes;[428] the remarks on stage illusion,[429]—might be cited.
[Sidenote: _The Coleridgean position and quality._]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account