William Wordsworth, excerpts from Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1802 edition)
The principal object, then, which I proposed to myself in these poems was to choose incidents and
situations from common life, and to relate or describe them, throughout, as far as was possible, in a
selection of language really used by men; and, at the same time, to throw over them a certain colouring of
imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual way; and, further, and
above all, to make these incidents and situations interesting by tracing in them, truly though not
ostentatiously, the primary laws of our nature: chiefly, as far as regards the manner in which we associate
ideas in a state of excitement. Low and rustic life was generally chosen, because in that condition, the
essential passions of the heart find a better soil in which they can attain their maturity, are less under
restraint, and speak a plainer and more emphatic language; because in that condition of life our elementary
feelings co-exist in a state of greater simplicity, and, consequently, may be more accurately contemplated,
and more forcibly communicated; because the manners of rural life germinate from those elementary
feelings; and, from the necessary character of rural occupations, are more easily comprehended; and are
more durable; and lastly, because in that condition [End p.264] the passions of men are incorporated with
the beautiful and permanent forms of nature. The language, too, of these men is adopted (purified indeed
from what appear to be its real defects, from all lasting and rational causes of dislike and disgust) because
such men hourly communicate with the best objects from which the best part of language is originally
derived; and because, from their rank in society and the sameness and narrow circle of their intercourse,
being less under the influence of social vanity they convey their feelings and notions in simple and
unelaborated expressions. Accordingly, such a language, arising out of repeated experience and regular
feelings, is a more permanent, and a far more philosophical language, than that which is frequently
substituted for it by poets, who think that they are conferring honour upon themselves and their art, in
proportion as they separate themselves from the sympathies of men, and indulge in arbitrary and capricious
habits of expression, in order to furnish food for fickle tastes, and fickle appetites, of their own creation.1
(Norton Anthology 264-5)
[…]
For all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: but though this be true, poems to
which any value can be attached, were never produced on any variety of subjects but by a man who, being
possessed of more than usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and deeply. For our continued
influxes of feeling are modified and directed by our thoughts, which are indeed the representatives of all
our past feelings; and, as by contemplating the relation of these general representatives to each other we
discover what is really important to men, so, by the repetition and continuance of this act, our feelings will
be connected with important subjects, till at length, if we be originally possessed of much sensibility, such
habits of mind will be produced, that, by obeying blindly and mechanically the impulses of those habits, we
shall describe objects, and utter sentiments, of such a nature and in such connection with each other, that
the understanding of the being to whom we address ourselves, if he be in a healthful state of association,
must necessarily be in some degree enlightened, and his affections ameliorated.
(Norton Anthology 265)
I have said that each of these poems has a purpose. I have also informed my reader what this purpose will
be found principally to be: namely, to illustrate the manner in which our feelings and ideas are associated in
a state of excitement. But, speaking in a language somewhat more appropriate, it is to follow the fluxes and
reflexes of the mind when agitated by the great and [End p. 265] simple affections of our nature.
There will … be found in these volumes little of what is usually called poetic diction;2 I have taken as much
pains to avoid it as others ordinarily take to produce it.... to bring my language nearer to the language of
1
2
It is worth while here to observe that the affecting parts of Chaucer are almost always expressed in language pure and universally intelligible
even to this day [Wordsworth’s note]
In the sense of words, phrases, and figures of speech not commonly used in conversation or prose that are regarded as especially appropriate to
poetry.
1
men, and further, because the pleasure which I have proposed to myself to impart is of a kind very different
from that which is supposed by many persons to be the proper object of poetry. … I have always
endeavoured to look steadily at my subject, consequently, I hope that there is in these poems little
falsehood of description, and that my ideas are expressed in language fitted to their respective importance.
(Norton Anthology 267)
I have said that poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion
recollected in tranquillity: the emotion is contemplated till by a species of reaction the tranquillity gradually
disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually
produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind.
(Norton Anthology 273)
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, excerpts from Biographia Literaria
During the first year that Mr Wordsworth and I were neighbours,3 our conversations turned frequently on
the two cardinal points of poetry, the power of exciting sympathy of the reader by a faithful adherence to
the truth of nature, and the power of giving the interest of novelty by the modifying colors of imagination.4
The sudden charm of which accidents of light and shade, which moonlight or sunset diffused over a known
and familiar landscape, appeared to represent the practicability of combining both. These are the poetry of
nature. The thought suggested itself (to which of us I do not recall) that a series of poems might be
composed of two sorts. In the one, the incidents and agents were to be, in part at least, supernatural; and
the excellence aimed at was to consist in the interesting of the affections by the dramatic truth of such
emotions as would naturally accompany such situations, supposing them real. And real in this sense they
have been to every human being who, from whatever source of delusion, has at any time believed himself
under supernatural agency. For the second class, subjects were to be chosen from ordinary life; the
characters and incidents were to be such as will be found in every village and its vicinity where there is a
meditative and feeling mind to seek after them, or to notice them when they present themselves.
In this idea originated the plan of the Lyrical Ballads, in which it was agreed that my endeavours
should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic; yet so as to transfer from
our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of
imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for a moment, which constitutes poetic faith. Mr
Wordsworth, on the other hand, was to propose to himself as his object to give the charm of novelty to
things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind’s
attention from the lethargy of custom and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before
us; an inexhaustible treasure, but for which, in consequence of the film of familiarity and selfish solicitude,
we have eyes yet see not, ears yet hear not, and hearts that neither feel nor understand.
(Norton Anthology 479)
[Wordsworth] was understood to contend for the extension of this style of poetry to all kinds, and to reject
as vicious and indefensible all phrases and forms of style that were not included in what he (unfortunately, I
think, adopting an equivocal expression) called the language of real life.
(Norton Anthology 479)
My own differences from certain supposed parts of Mr Wordsworth’s theory ground themselves on the
assumption that his words had been rightly interpreted, as purporting that the proper diction for poetry in
general consists altogether in a language taken, with due exceptions, from the mouths of men in real life, a
language which actually constitutes the natural conversation of men under the influence of natural
3
4
At Nether Stowey and Alfoxden, Somerset, in 1797
Cf Wordsworth’s account in his Preface to Lyrical Ballads
2
feelings.5 My objection is, first, that in any sense this rule is applicable only to certain classes of poetry;
secondly, that even to these classes it is not applicable, except in such a sense as hath never by anyone (as
far as I know or have read) been denied or doubted; and, lastly, that as far as, in an that degree in which it is
practicable, yet as a rule it is useless, if not injurious, and therefore need not or ought not to be practiced.
...
As little can I agree with the assertion that from the objects with which the rustic hourly communicates the
best part of language is formed. For first... the distinct knowledge of an uneducated rustic would furnish a
very scanty vocabulary. … Secondly, I deny that the words and combinations of words derived from the
objects, with which the rustic is familiar, whether with distinct or confused knowledge, can be justly said to
form the best part of language.
(Norton Anthology 484)
Every man’s language varies according to the extent of his knowledge, the activity of his faculties, and the
depth or quickness of his feelings. …. The language of Algernon Sidney6 differs not at all from that which
every well-educated gentleman would wish to write. [...] Neither one nor the other differ half as much from
the general language of cultivated society as the language of Mr Wordsworth’s homeliest composition
differs from that of a common peasant. For “real” therefore we must substitute ordinary, or lingua
communis.7 And this, we have proved, is no more found in the phraseology of low and rustic life than in that
of any other class. Omit the peculiarities of each, and the result must of course be common to all. And
assuredly the omissions and changes to be made in the language of rustics before it could be transferred to
any species of poem, except the drama or other professed imitation, are at least as numerous and weighty
as would be required in adapting to the same purpose the ordinary language of tradesmen and
manufacturers.
(Norton Anthology 484-5)
The poet, described in ideal perfection, brings the whole soul of man into activity, with the subordination of
its faculties to each other, according to their relative worth and dignity. He diffuses a tone and spirit of unity
that blends and (as it were) fuses, each into each, by that synthetic and magical power to which we have
exclusively appropriated the name of imagination.
(Norton Anthology 483)
5
6
7
Wordsworth’s Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1800): ‘A selection of the real language of men in a state of vivid sensation... Low and rustic life was
generally chosen... The language, too, of these men is adopted”
Republican soldier and statesman (1622-1683), author of Discourses Concerning Government, executed for his part in the Rye House Plot to
assassinate Charles II
The common language (Latin)
3