Like Wordsworth, Coleridge was lashed by anonymous critics, who made personal criticisms as well as literary criticisms. Of course, Coleridge and Wordsworth tried to strike back at their critics, but they didn’t want to be accused of being irritable or thin-skinned. Horace spoke of the irritable race of bards (genus irritabile vatum). Coleridge tries to defend himself — and defend poets in general — from the charge of irritability.
Coleridge says that the irritable writers are those who have talent but not genius, those with a “desire to appear men of genius.” I haven’t accused any writers of imitating genius, but I have accused modern painters/sculptors of imitating genius, of having a “desire to appear men of genius.”
Coleridge argues that the best writers aren’t irritable, but rather calm and composed, above the fray:
| Where the ideas are vivid, and there exists an endless power of combining and modifying them, the feelings and affections blend more easily and intimately with these ideal creations than with the objects of the senses; the mind is affected by thoughts, rather than by things.... For the conceptions of the mind may be so vivid and adequate, as to preclude that impulse to the realizing of them....
The men of the greatest genius, as far as we can judge from their own works or from the accounts of their contemporaries, appear to have been of calm and tranquil temper in all that related to themselves. In the inward assurance of permanent fame, they seem to have been either indifferent or resigned with regard to immediate reputation.1 |
Coleridge speaks of “the creative and self-sufficing power of absolute genius.” Coleridge also discusses the “commanding genius,” who has more than “mere talent” but falls short of “absolute genius”:
| Steadfastness within and immovable resolve, with outward restlessness and whirling activity; violence with guile; temerity with cunning; and, as the result of all, interminableness of object with perfect indifference of means; these are the qualities that have constituted the commanding genius; these are the marks, that have characterized the masters of mischief, the liberticides, and mighty hunters of mankind, from Nimrod to Bonaparte.2 |
Coleridge says that the commanding genius has will but lacks reason and religion. When will is blended with reason, we have wisdom; when will is blended with religion, we have love; when will stands alone, without reason or religion, we have “Satanic pride,” and “remorseless despotism” toward others.
Who is Coleridge thinking of when he speaks of “commanding genius”? Primarily Napoleon, his contemporary. Perhaps Caesar and Alexander, too. A reader in our time might think of Hitler, the Nazi emphasis on will, and the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will (1935). Perhaps we should describe Napoleon and Hitler as excessive will, and describe the French Revolutionaries and the Communists as excessive reason.
Coleridge believes that “absolute genius” has a “calm and tranquil temper in all that related to themselves.” As an example, he mentions Shakespeare, and he says that “Shakespeare’s evenness and sweetness of temper were almost proverbial in his own age.” Of course, Coleridge is thinking of the Stratford man. His view doesn’t apply to the real Shakespeare, who killed a cook, quarreled with Philip Sidney, fought duels with his enemies, etc. I suspect that the “absolute genius” isn’t as calm and tranquil as Coleridge thinks.
Turning from Shakespeare to Chaucer, Spenser, and Milton, Coleridge argues that they were even-tempered, not irritable. He writes, “Through all the works of Chaucer there reigns a cheerfulness, a manly hilarity.” Coleridge’s Table Talk in the year of his death (1834) makes a similar point: “I take unceasing delight in Chaucer. His manly cheerfulness is especially delicious to me in my old age. How exquisitely tender he is, and yet how perfectly free from the least touch of sickly melancholy or morbid drooping!” As Blyth says, Chaucer was “full of Zen.”3
Coleridge describes Spenser as “constitutionally tender, delicate,” never irritable or quarrelsome. Turning to Milton, Coleridge writes,
| The same calmness, and even greater self-possession, may be affirmed of Milton, as far as his poems, and poetic character are concerned. He reserved his anger for the enemies of religion, freedom, and his country. My mind is not capable of forming a more august conception, than arises from the contemplation of this great man in his latter days: poor, sick, old, blind, slandered, persecuted.... He did nevertheless
Argue not |
Coleridge realized that geniuses like Milton and Shakespeare weren’t always calm and composed. Coleridge wrote, “Genius may co-exist with wildness, idleness, folly, even with crime.”5 Genius is multi-faceted, both calm and wild.
One reason why poets are accused of being irritable, Coleridge says, is that, when they’re criticized, they sometimes defend themselves passionately. We should remember, Coleridge says, that great writers are passionate about everything they write, not just about defending themselves; Coleridge speaks of, “the general liveliness of his manner and language, whatever is the subject.” Genius is passionate, it has strong feelings; as Coleridge puts it, “Sensibility indeed, both quick and deep, is not only a characteristic feature, but may be deemed a component part, of genius.”
Coleridge seemed to feel that his critics made arguments that were half true. Coleridge spoke of, “deception, by the telling the half of a fact, and omitting the other half, when it is from their mutual counteraction and neutralization, that the whole truth arises.” Elsewhere Coleridge called half-truths “the most inflammatory of all modes of falsehood,” and “the most dangerous of errors.” I’m reminded of Tennyson’s lines:
A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies...
A lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with outright,
But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight.
I’m reminded of swindlers, who sometimes tell “a lie which is part a truth.”
Coleridge distinguishes genius from talent by saying that genius is
| the faculty which adds to the existing stock of power and knowledge by new views, new combinations; by discoveries not accidental but anticipated, or resulting from anticipation. In short, I define Genius, as originality in intellectual construction; the moral accompaniment, and actuating principle of which consists, perhaps, in the carrying on of the freshness and feelings of childhood into the powers of manhood.
By Talent, on the other hand, I mean the comparative facility of acquiring, arranging, and applying the stock furnished by others, and already existing in books or other conservatories of intellect.6 |
Coleridge’s view is similar to Kuhn’s; Kuhn said that genius creates a new paradigm, while talent works within the existing paradigm.
What does the slogan “Never Trump” mean? Does it mean that, if Trump ran against Hitler, we should vote for Hitler? Or not vote at all? What if Trump ran against Putin? True, there aren’t any Hitlers today, but there are lots of Putins; one might even say that rulers like Putin are the rule, democratic regimes the exception. We may not have any politicians like Putin in the U.S., but we’ve had David Duke and George Wallace.
Voting is a comparison, we shouldn’t say “Never Trump,” we should compare Trump to the alternative. Even if Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue, we can’t say “Never Trump,” we need to compare Trump to his opponent; we might find that his opponent shot 2 people on 5th Avenue, or 200.
What does the slogan “Black Lives Matter” mean? Does it mean that non-Black lives don’t matter, that Asian lives (for example) don’t matter? Or does it mean that the police too often use rough tactics, and too often these tactics result in the death of a young Black man? Like “Never Trump,” “Black Lives Matter” is too simplistic, and too ambiguous, it further fragments a society that’s already too fragmented.
On some college campuses, protests against Israeli policy have included the slogans “From the river to the sea!” and “Globalize the Intifada!” Both of these slogans are ambiguous. “From the river to the sea!” could mean killing Israelis, or it could mean “This land is rightfully ours, it was taken from us by force, it should be returned to us.” “Globalize the Intifada!” could be a call for violence against Jews, or it could be a call for what John Lewis called “good trouble,” i.e., resistance to perceived injustice.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is essentially a struggle over land. One might compare it to King Philip’s War, which took place in New England in the 1670s. The Arab claim to the land is at least as strong as the Israeli claim, probably stronger, but the Arabs haven’t been able to enforce their claim. They’ve been defeated in numerous wars, and instead of admitting defeat, making the best of the situation, and looking to the future, they’ve engaged in wild acts of terrorism, hoping to embitter the lives of Israelis, and force the Israelis to make concessions. And if the Israelis offer a deal, the Arabs say it’s not good enough, and the Arabs end up with less than they were offered; as Abba Eban said, the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
One of the Founding Fathers of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, described the situation thus:
| Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army.7 |
This is indeed a rough world. The highest court is the clash of arms.
Ben-Gurion’s remarks indicate that opposition to Israeli policy isn’t simply anti-semitism. Rather, it’s based on the idea that “This land is rightfully ours. We were here, you came and took our land.” Opposition to Israeli policy might sometimes be mixed with anti-semitism, but it’s not anti-semitism “pure and simple.”
One hundred years ago, in the 1920s, Gertrude Bell foresaw the coming clash between Israelis and Arabs: “It’s like a nightmare in which you foresee all the horrible things which are going to happen and can’t stretch out your hand to prevent them.” The Arabs are determined not to forget, not to forget that they have a claim on the land, that the land was taken from them. The Israelis are determined to maintain a strong army, and keep fighting.
The Presidents of several IvyLeague colleges recently appeared before Congress. They were asked by Elise Stefanik how they would react if campus-protesters advocated genocide of Jews.
Stefanik made several dubious assumptions: she assumed that Congress should oversee universities; she assumed that ambiguous slogans (“From the river to the sea!” and “Globalize the Intifada!”) were calls for genocide; and she assumed that Jews were endangered on campuses where none have been killed, none have been seriously injured, and none have even been slightly injured, campuses where many of the anti-Israel protesters were themselves Jewish.
Stefanik’s question was inappropriate; indeed, the whole hearing was inappropriate. Perhaps at the root of the question was hostility to academia. Stefanik, a Harvard grad herself, was booted out of Harvard’s Institute of Politics. Harvard’s message seemed to be, “We’re tired of being 1% conservative, we’re going to be 0% conservative.” This annoys conservatives like Stefanik, who probably believe, “If you’re going to receive federal money, you can’t be 0% conservative, you can’t thumb your nose at half the country. If you’re going to talk about diversity, you should practice it; you should have people with different views, not just different complexions.”
Slogans are the lowest form of political discourse. Rather than banning certain slogans and allowing others, perhaps colleges should teach students that all slogans produce more heat than light. Colleges should aspire to a higher level of discourse than marching, chanting slogans, and disrupting classes.
Fastball (2015) is an exceptionally good baseball documentary. It puts you in the batter’s box against the best fastball pitchers, from Walter Johnson to Bob Feller to Bob Gibson to Nolan Ryan. It’s a good mix of “old baseball” and contemporary baseball. It describes how even the best hitters are afraid of power pitchers, especially when they’re pitching inside; hitters know that a fastball could kill you, or at least injure you seriously. Fastball was directed by Jonathan Hock, who has directed many sports films, including a film about basketball called Unguarded.
© L. James Hammond 2023
feedback
visit Phlit home page
become a patron via Patreon
make a donation via PayPal
| Footnotes | |
| 1. | Biographia Literaria, Ch. 2 back |
| 2. | Statesman’s Manual, Appendix B. Coleridge took a negative view of Napoleon, while Nietzsche took a positive view of Napoleon. Coleridge took a negative view of French literature/culture, while Nietzsche took a positive view. back |
| 3. | R. H. Blyth, Zen in English Literature, Ch. 15, p. 212 back |
| 4. | These lines are from Milton’s poem “To the Same,” also known as “To Cyriack Skinner” and “Sonnet 22.” back |
| 5. | Table Talk, July 23, 1827. Quoted in The Collected Works of Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, edited by Engell and Bate, Vol. 1, p. 44, footnote 1. Engell and Bate have lots of interesting information in their footnotes, such as quotes from Table Talk. back |
| 6. | The Friend, in the Complete Works of Coleridge, edited by Shedd, Vol. 2, p. 384 back |
| 7. | I found this quote on Twitter. It probably comes from The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann (Goldmann also wrote Community of Fate, and an autobiography). A similar Ben-Gurion quote can be found in this NewYorker article. back |