ground themselves on the assumption that his words had been rightly inter
preted, 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 feelings.9 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, and in that degree in which it is practicable, yet as a ride it is
useless, if not injurious, and therefore either need not or ought not to be
practiced. * * *
[RUSTIC LIFE (ABOVE ALL, LOW AND RUSTIC LIFE) ESPECIALLY UNFAVORABLE TO THE FORMATION OF A HUMAN DICTION THE BEST PARTS OF LANGUAGE THE PRODUCTS OF PHILOSOPHERS, NOT CLOWNS 1 OR SHEPHERDS]
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, if
to communicate with an object implies such an acquaintance with it, as ren
ders it capable of being discriminately reflected on; the distinct knowledge of
an uneducated rustic would furnish a very scanty vocabulary. The few things,
and modes of action, requisite for his bodily conveniences, would alone be
7. Adapted from John Davies's Nosce Teipsum a state of vivid sensation. . . . Low and rustic life ('Know Thyself'), a philosophical poem (1599). was generally chosen. . . . The language, too, of
8. Clothing. these men is adopted.' 9. Wordsworth's Preface to Lyrical Ballads 1. Rustic people. (1800): 'A selection of the real language of men in
.
484 / SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE
individualized; while all the rest of nature would be expressed by a small
number of confused general terms. Secondly, I deny that the words and com
binations 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. It is more than probable that many classes of the brute
creation possess discriminating sounds, by which they can convey to each
other notices of such objects as concern their food, shelter, or safety. Yet we
hesitate to call the aggregate of such sounds a language, otherwise than meta
phorically. The best part of human language, properly so called, is derived
from reflection on the acts of the mind itself. It is formed by a voluntary
appropriation of fixed symbols to internal acts, to processes and results of
imagination, the greater part of which have no place in the consciousness
of uneducated man; though in civilized society, by imitation and passive
remembrance of what they hear from their religious instructors and other
superiors, the most uneducated share in the harvest which they neither sowed
or reaped. * * *
[THE LANGUAGE OF MILTON AS MUCH THE LANGUAGE OF REAL LIFE, YEA, INCOMPARABLY MORE SO THAN THAT OF THE COTTAGER]
Here let me be permitted to remind the reader that the positions which I
controvert are contained in the sentences?'a selection of the REAL language
of men'; 'the language of these men (i.e., men in low and rustic life) I propose
to myself to imitate, and as far as possible to adopt the very language of men.'
'Between the language of prose and that of metrical composition there neither
is, nor can be any essential difference.' It is against these exclusively that my
opposition is directed. I object, in the very first instance, to an equivocation in the use of the word
'real.' Every man's language varies according to the extent of his knowledge,
