Saturday, 5 December 2020

John Sterling and Coleridge

 

    John Sterling, by Sir Anthony Coningham Sterling; early 1840s. National Portrait Gallery.


John Sterling died in 1844 of tuberculosis. He was only thirty-eight. A man of promise who in the end didn't have time to realise that promise, he's more famous now for the book his friend Thomas Carlyle wrote about him than for his own writings. And indeed, The Life of John Sterling (1851) is one of Carlyle's best books, though it is much more about Carlyle and his opinions than it is an account of the life of his friend. For example, and of relevance to this blog, it contains Carlyle's memories of visiting Coleridge during his late ‘Sage of Highgate’ phase: very entertainingly written if far from flattering:

To sit as a passive bucket and be pumped into, whether you consent or not, can in the long-run be exhilarating to no creature; how eloquent soever the flood of utterance that is descending. But if it be withal a confused unintelligible flood of utterance, threatening to submerge all known landmarks of thought, and drown the world and you!—I have heard Coleridge talk, with eager musical energy, two stricken hours, his face radiant and moist, and communicate no meaning whatsoever to any individual of his hearers,—certain of whom, I for one, still kept eagerly listening in hope; the most had long before given up, and formed (if the room were large enough) secondary humming groups of their own. He began anywhere: you put some question to him, made some suggestive observation: instead of answering this, or decidedly setting out towards answer of it, he would accumulate formidable apparatus, logical swim-bladders, transcendental life-preservers and other precautionary and vehiculatory gear, for setting out.

His talk, alas, was distinguished, like himself, by irresolution: it disliked to be troubled with conditions, abstinences, definite fulfilments;—loved to wander at its own sweet will, and make its auditor and his claims and humble wishes a mere passive bucket for itself. He had knowledge about many things and topics, much curious reading; but generally all topics led him, after a pass or two, into the high seas of theosophic philosophy, the hazy infinitude of Kantean transcendentalism, with its “sum-m-mjects” and “om-m-mjects.” Sad enough; for with such indolent impatience of the claims and ignorances of others, he had not the least talent for explaining this or anything unknown to them; and you swam and fluttered in the mistiest wide unintelligible deluge of things
Harsh! 

Sterling also visited the elderly Coleridge, and was much more favourably struck than was his fellow Scotsman. As a twenty-year old student at Cambridge Sterling wrote to a friend: ‘I scarcely hold fast by anything but Shakespeare, Milton, and Coleridge and I have nothing serious to say to any one but to read the Aids to Reflection on the formation of a Manly character—a book the more necessary now to us all because except in England I do not see that there is a chance of any men being produced anywhere.’ Richard Holmes takes up the story:
When he came down to visit Coleridge at Highgate in 1828 [aged 22], sometimes accompanied by J S Mill, his impressions took on yet more apocalyptic tones. Coleridge looked “as if he belonged not so much to this, or to any other age, as to history.” They talked of everything, from landscape gardening to Pantheism to the missionary preaching of Edward Irving. But what remained with Sterling was something more unsettling, the sense of a man who had been through some great personal and historical storm. “It is painful to observe in Coleridge that, with all the kindness and glorious far-seeing intelligence of his eye, there is a glare in it, a light half unearthly, half morbid. It is the glittering eye of the Ancient Mariner. His cheek too shows a flush of over-excitement, the red of a storm cloud at sunset. When he dies, another of the greatest of their race, will join the few Immortals, the ill understood and ill requited, who have walked the earth.” [Richard Holmes, Coleridge: Darker Reflections (HarperCollins 1998), 549]
Sterling himself embarked upon a career as an essayist and journalist. He published one novel: the 1885 Dictionary of National Biography entry talks of ‘his suggestive but unsatisfying novel of Arthur Coningsby’ and adds ‘another novel, Fitzgeorge, brought out by the publisher of Arthur Coningsby in 1832, has been attributed to Sterling, but it is impossible that he should have written it’, which is rather tantalising (since I've not read the latter book I can't speak to this judgment). Sterling was also a poet. Not a very good poet, but a poet nonetheless. Here, from Poems (1839), its rhyming-couplets clanking as it stomps along like a knight in ill-fitting armour, is his tribute to STC, simply entitled ‘Coleridge’:
Like some full tree that bends with fruit and leaves,
While gentle wind a quivering descant weaves,
He met the gaze; with sibyl eyes, and brow
By age snow-clad, yet bright with summer's glow;
His cheek was youthful, and his features played
Like lights and shadows in a flowery glade.
Around him flowed with many a varied fall
And depth of voice ’mid smiles most musical,
Words like the Seraph's when in Paradise
He vainly strove to make his hearers wise.
In sore disease I saw him laid, — a shrine
Half-ruined, and all tottering, still divine.
'Mid broken arch and shattered cloister hung
The ivy's green, and wreaths of blossom clung;
Through mingling vine and bay the sunshine fell
Or winds and moonbeams sported round the cell;
But o'er the altar burnt that heavenly flame
Whose life no damps of earth availed to tame.
And there have I swift hours a watcher been,
Heard mystic spells, and sights prophetic seen,
Till all beyond appeared a vast Inane,
Yet all with deeper life revived again;
And Nature woke in Wisdom's light, and grew
Instinct with lore that else she never knew,
Expanding spirits filled her countless forms,
And Truth beamed calmly through chaotic storms,
Till shapes, hues, symbols, felt the wizard's rod,
And while they sank in silence there was God.
O! Heart that like a fount with freshness ran,
O! Thought beyond the stature given to man,
Although thy page had blots on many a line,
Yet Faith remedial made the tale divine.
With all the poet's fusing, kindling blaze,
And sage's skill to thread each tangled maze,
Thy fair expressive image meets the view,
Bearing the sunlike torch, and subtle clew;
Yet more than these for thee the Christian's crown
By Faith and Peace outvalued all renown.
This wearing, enter yon supernal dome,
And reach at last thy calm ideal home!
Enough for us to follow from afar,
And joyous track thy clear emerging Star.
Appeared a vast Inane indeed. Eventually Sterling, deciding literature was not working out for him career-wise, embarked upon a life in the Church (when he died he was curate at the parish of Herstmonceux in Sussex); so it shouldn't surprise us that he presses the Christian Redemption of a Troubled Genius line in this poem.

Sterling also wrote a mildly comic epic called The Election; a Poem in Seven Books (1841). A parochial English borough loses its MP, and the bye-election is contested by Frank Vane (Sterling himself), and the blockheaded Peter Mogg. Campaigining gives Sterling the opportunity to sketch various types, but in the course of the poem Frank falls in love with Ann and decides to leave politics, in effect gifting the constituency to Mogg. My interest here is less in the Mudfog-esque satire of 1840s electoral practice and (considering under which bloggy aegis this post appears) more with glimpses of Coleridge. Here, for instance, from Book 5: the heroine Ann, having got herself ready for bed, and prayed, contemplates the cosmos in unschooled yet intuitively Coleridgean ways.


So mused the girl, with thoughts obscure though grand,
Whose worth she felt, but could not understand,
Nor heeded whence they came: for aught she knew,
From some hot, black, unearthly Timbuctoo,
Or danger-teeming doubt-infected land,
The soil of tenets marked as contraband.
For she nor sceptics read, nor dogmatists,
Nor knew how sophists bait theosophists;
Nor e'er had learnt, while sipping thought with tea,
To talk of Plato, Kant, and Koong-foo-tse.
She would have liked a fairy tale far more
Than Hegel's nay than Bentham's deepest lore;
Nor cared a scrap of curling-paper, if
Vorstellung is or is not mere Begriff;
Nor knew that virtue is but pleasure dressed
In what disguise opinion holds the best.
But she, though young, had been impelled to think
Without much help from printer's magic ink;
And her quick heart and sleepless fancy caught
Some wildfire sparks of philosophic thought;
And made her feel, not knowing why nor whence,
Nor finding words, although she had the sense,
That metaphysics, help they us or hurt,
Are nearer much to all than shift or shirt.
Coleridge isn't named here, obviously; but the reference to Kant and the use of those two Kantian terms, so important to Coleridge, surely give the game away. Kung Fu-tse (or as we now generally anglicise his name, Confucius) is an interesting referent in an 1841 poem, I think.

Carlyle had a low opinion of Sterling's novel Arthur Coningsby (1833):
The general impression it left on me, which has never since been renewed by a second reading in whole or in part, was the certain prefigurement to myself, more or less distinct, of an opulent, genial and sunny mind, but misdirected, disappointed, experienced in misery;—nay crude and hasty; mistaking for a solid outcome from its woes what was only to me a gilded vacuity. The hero an ardent youth, representing Sterling himself, plunges into life such as we now have it in these anarchic times, with the radical, utilitarian, or mutinous heathen theory, which is the readiest for inquiring souls; finds, by various courses of adventure, utter shipwreck in this; lies broken, very wretched: that is the tragic nodus, or apogee of his life-course. In this mood of mind, he clutches desperately towards some new method (recognizable as Coleridge's) of laying hand again on the old Church, which has hitherto been extraneous and as if non-extant to his way of thought; makes out, by some Coleridgean legedermain, that there actually is still a Church for him; that this extant Church, which he long took for an extinct shadow, is not such, but a substance; upon which he can anchor himself amid the storms of fate;—and he does so, even taking orders in it, I think. Such could by no means seem to me the true or tenable solution. Here clearly, struggling amid the tumults, was a lovable young fellow-soul; who had by no means yet got to land; but of whom much might be hoped, if he ever did. Some of the delineations are highly pictorial, flooded with a deep ruddy effulgence; betokening much wealth, in the crude or the ripe state. The hope of perhaps, one day, knowing Sterling, was welcome and interesting to me. Arthur Coningsby, struggling imperfectly in a sphere high above circulating-library novels, gained no notice whatever in that quarter; gained, I suppose in a few scattered heads, some such recognition as the above; and there rested. Sterling never mentioned the name of it in my hearing, or would hear it mentioned.
To be fair, it's a pretty bad novel. At the beginning of the story Arthur, an English gentleman of means, is a passionate radical, looking forward to the revolution that will right the wrongs of the world. His political views get in the way of his love for English rose, Isabel. For most of the book Arthur wanders about, moons after his girl and meets various people who tell their, sometimes lengthy stories. My favourite of these involves a Frenchman called Dumond. Having served as a soldier in Canada Dumond recalls how he become ‘indifferent to life’, since ‘rations were bad, and we had no claret in Canada’. His patrol is surprised by Indians:
After having killed thirteen of them with my own hand, I was taken prisoner. To avenge the death of their comrades, they resolved to inflict on me the most exquisite tortures; and to render their triumph the more signal, they carried me to the summit of a hill, at the distance of two leagues from the fortress in the garrison of which I had been the most distinguished soldier. An old chief offered to save me, if I would become his adopted son and marry his daughter. But my religion, my country, my fidelity to my mistress forbade it; and I indignantly refused. They tied me to the stake, and crowded round me, brandishing their knives and torches. [Sterling, Arthur Coningsby (1833), 3:34-35]
Things are looking grim, until, glancing up, Dumond sees ‘a small black body in the sky.’ It is a cannon-shell, fired from the fort, which ordnance has the following fortuitous effect: ‘the whole tribe of Indians was destroyed by the bursting of the shell, which lifted me into the air, and I fell at the feet of the colonel's lady, on one of the bastions of the fort.’ 

True story, bro.

The novel isn't all as bizarre as this, although it certainly takes its time, as fiction, getting started. Eventually Arthur travels to Paris just as the French Revolution is kicking off, the experience of which cures him of his earlier moon-headed radicalism. At one point Arthur encounters a crowd on the street: ‘squalid, blood-stained, and many of them intoxicated, they clashed their pikes and sabres to the music of the murderous Hymn of the Revolution.’ [3:70] Oh no!

He's arrested, released, and, utterly disillusioned of all his earlier political hope, pursued by ‘Disappointment, Grief, Remorse, Doubt, and, following behind, the darkest of all, Despair’, goes to live with a beautiful Frenchwoman called Victoria. The final third of the novel devolves into a series of lengthy extracts from Arthur's memorandum book, as the two lovers swap lecturettes on topics such as ‘Infinity’, ‘Human Perfectibility’ and ‘Hamlet’. Victoria sickens and dies of a Mystery Ailment, hanging-on just long enough to bestow upon Arthur several-hundred-pages-worth of her life story before she goes. He wanders Europe grief-stricken and finally returns to England, resolved to withdraw from society: ‘I would not utter a syllable or stir a finger to become as celebrated as Sesostris or Mahomet ... a man can propose to himself but one of two objects,—the world without and the world within. I have almost equal contempt for both.’ [3:371]
What, then, shall I do? Whither shall I betake myself? This was the question which I asked some months ago when I first came to this retreat. It stands but a few yards from the sea which I have always so much loved. I was born upon the shore and an Englishman has almost an innate propensity to delight and exult in the presence of his national element. In childhood I thought of it as a watery garden of God. Its birds, its winds, its never-ceasing melody, the innumerable colours born of its depths or reflected on its surface, all seemed to me divine. I have lived for days and nights alone in my own small skiff on the waste of waves, and been elevated by the conception of that unbounded elemental power, on whose breast I felt myself no more than a bubble of its spray. I have seen, on a sudden, through the enormous portals of a range of mountains, the ocean barrier rising solid and blacky as if from earth's foundations to the stars. ... in hours of vacuity and dejection, I have seen in the ocean a symbol of a blind, impersonal, eternal, self-existent, godless nature, in whose abysses man might lose his perplexed individual being, and find a fitting and final consummation to his despair.

These waves are now no more than so much brine, — a mighty piece of hydrostatic mechanism, splendid to the eye, astonishing to the intellect. Yet I have a certain dim and mournful pleasure, arising probably from the remembrance of former feelings, in walking along the sands on which the billows break, and catching the murmurs which are borne on the night-breeze through my chamber windows; or when morning opens on the waters. I still love to watch the spreading foam which brightens the sands into a mirror of the various heaven, and, fast disappearing, leaves them again a momentary blank. [Arthur Coningsby, 3:379-83]
The novel ends with Arthur living beside the sea (he calls it ‘this vast and mysterious girdle of the globe’ [3:381]; I wonder if Arnold read this novel prior to writing ‘Dover Beach’?) in a ruined castle, resolving to quit Europe and go live in a cabin in the middle of the American wilderness somewhere. I certainly don't find in it the passage from gloom through Coleridge towards a reconciliation with the Church of England that Carlyle implies is the novel's throughline: Arthur discovering ‘there actually is still a Church for him’ and ‘taking orders in it’, as Carlyle says in his summary simply doesn't describe the novel. Perhaps he never finished reading it.

Monday, 30 November 2020

Pantisocracy

 


It's a word that is, as you can see from this screenshot (click to embiggen), in the OED now: ‘a form of social organization in which all members are equal in social position and responsibility, usually also having property in common; a political doctrine advocating this. Chiefly with reference to the political ideas of a group of writers and intellectuals of the 1790s, including Robert Southey and Samuel Taylor Coleridge.’ 

So, yes: Coleridge and Southey planned for a time to establish a Pantisocratic, utopian community in Kentucky: twelve married couples, clearing an area of land and living thereupon with all labour and possessions in common. Later they pinned their hopes upon the Susquehanna River in Maryland/ Pennsylvania. Coleridge wrote to Southey [6th September 1794] with the calculation that ‘£2000 will do’, that ‘we shall buy the land a great deal cheaper when we arrive in America than we could do in England.’ He added, rather over-optimistically, ‘that twelve men may easily clear 300 acres in four or five months’, adding that he had been speaking to an agent who ‘recommends the Susquehannah for its excessive beauty and its security from hostile Indians.’ Finally, as the project recoiled from its encounter with the Reality Principle, not least in financial terms, Southey proposed moving themselves and their wives instead to Wales, a downgrading of ambition that disappointed Coleridge muchly. In the end it all came to nothing.

The OED entry at the head of this post cites Southey as the first to use the word in print, but it was Coleridge's coinage: the root of the word being the Greek ἰσοκρατία. So: as democracy is rule by the demos, or people; as oligarchy is rule by the oligos or few, and as aristocracy is rule by the aristos or best (supposedly), so isocracy is rule by equals (as an isoscles triangle is one whose two longest sides are of equal length). Coleridge adds in the παντ-, or παν-, pan-, meaning all, to show not only that all will rule but that all will rule as equals. As Michael Murphy notes:

Ian Wylie argues that Pantisocracy was modelled on ‘the early Christian communities of the first centuries’; Kelvin Everest views the scheme as ‘a means of escape from the hostility of anti-jacobin England’ (influenced by Hartley’s Unitarianism); J. A. Appleyard reads Pantisocracy in terms of the philosophical systems of Hartley, Priestley, and Godwin; Peter Kitson examines the influence of Harrington and Puritan utopias; Leonard Deen focuses on the influence of Godwin, the Bible, and Hartley; Robert Sayre notes the coexisting traditions of the French Revolution and Romantic Utopianism; Stuart Andrews identifies a utopianism that has its roots in the American Revolution; and E. Logan explores Coleridge’s use of American travel accounts.
Godwin and Priestly were certainly the most immediate inspirations, at least so far as Coleridge was concerned. Writing to Southey [21st October 1794] he announced that ‘in the book of Pantisocracy I hope to have comprised all that is good in Godwin’ [Collected Letters 1:115] ... ‘all that was good’ being Coleridge's way of announcing that he was jettisoning the humanist and atheistical ‘bad’. In other letters he added to Godwinian thought Hartley’s system of association, from The Observations on Man (1749), extrapolating from principles of mental and perceptual connection of ideas, feelings and sensations to social connections of fellowship, ethics and benevolence: ‘the ardour of private Attachments makes Philanthropy a necessary habit of the Soul. I love my Friend—such as he is, all mankind are or might be! The deduction is evident. Philanthropy (and indeed every other Virtue) is a thing of Concretion—Some home-born Feeling is the centre of the Ball, that, rolling on thro’ Life collects and assimilates every congenial Affection. [Collected Letters 1:86].

There's been a lot written on Coleridge's concept of Pantisocracy, but less on its origins as a piece of terminology. What was in Coleridge's mind as he coined the word? There are two possible answers I think. One is that he was reading-up ancient history. The crucial thing here is that various Greek city-states had various ideas of governance, democracy (as at Athens) being only one among many. There were other (as we might say) ‘democratic’ social models in the larger environment. And, to be specific, the word ἰσοκρατία, meaning a social system of ‘equal power’, is a word only used, in this political sense, by Herodotus. He uses it to describe not a Greek polis but a people in Asia Minor: the Issedones. Interestingly, their radical equality of social distribution was a specifically gendered matter: δὲ δίκαιοι καὶ οὗτοι λέγονται εἶναι, ἰσοκρατέες δὲ ὁμοίως αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖσι ἀνδράσι ‘these are said to be a law-abiding people, too, and the women to have equal power [ἰσοκρατέες] with the men’ [Herodotus 2:26.2]. In other words, if democracy is the rule by the demos excluding women, foreigners and slaves, isocracy is the rule by men and women. Is that what Coleridge had in mind?

There's another possibility, which is that Coleridge came upon the word not in Herodotus but Galen. This second-century Greek physician used the word in a physiological rather than a political sense: a well-balanced individual enjoyed health, he argued, on account of his or her inner ἰσο-κράτεια [‘equilibrium, equivalence’; Galen Historia Philogia, 126]. This makes more sense to me, as a source for Coleridge's neologism: that all (pan) should be in equilibrium for a perfect society. And if it's where Coleridge found the word it's interesting because it suggests he was reading Galen quite early in the 1790s Searching his corpus I can only find much later, occasional Galenic references, usually where Galen is (for instance) quoted in ‘Sennertus’, the 17th-century German physician Daniel Sennert. So that would be interesting.

Which is more likely, do you think? That Coleridge was extrapolating Heorodotian ideas of social democracy into the modern 1790s? Or that he was thinking of social equality in physiological terms? 

Friday, 20 November 2020

"The Safety of the Country" (1807): A New Coleridge Poem?

 


New in the sense of hitherto unnoticed. This is only speculative, but on balance I'd say these verses are by Coleridge. See what you think.

So, my starting point was this eight-line political squib, which certainly is by Coleridge: ‘The Taste of the Times’:

Some whim or fancy pleases every age;
For talents premature ’tis now the rage.
In Music how great Handel would have smil'd
T' have seen whole crowds enraptur'd with a child!
A Garrick we have had in little Betty,
And now, we're told, we have a Pitt in Petty.
All must allow, since thus it is decreed.
He is a very Petty Pitt indeed.
J. C. C. Mays in his edition of the Poetical Works has this as #384, and records in the headnote that ‘the only known text of the poem is a transcript by John Taylor Coleridge in his Commonplace book, subscribed “S.T.C.”’ 

The joke here concerns the extreme youth of Lord Henry Petty, who, though only 25, was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Greville's ‘Ministry of All the Talents’, the government which succeeded the death of Pitt in January 1806. Coleridge returned to England from Malta on the 17th August that year and presumably wrote the poem thereafter. Mays adds, shrewdly, ‘it is likely that the poem was copied from a contemporary newspaper which has not been traced.’

Being curious I checked, and Mays is right: this poem appeared in the Morning Post 25th February 1807. I wasn’t able to find an actual copy of the paper, short of paying a hefty subscription for full access to the British Newspaper Archives database, but I did find a copy of the anthology The Spirit of the Public Journals 1807: Being an Impartial Selection of the Most Ingenious Essays and Jeux D'Espirit That Appear in the Newspapers and Other Publications, Volume 11 (1808), a publication which selected and reprinted choice verse and prose from a range of British papers. And there is Coleridge’s poem, subscripted ‘From the Morning Post’, and with a few variants from the version Mays, following JTC, prints:
Some whim or fancy pleases every age;
And talents premature are now the rage.
In music how great Handel would have smil'd
T' have seen whole crowds in raptures with a child!
A Garrick we have had in little Betty,
And now, we're told, we have a Pitt in Petty.
All must allow, since thus it is decreed.
He is a very Petty Pitt indeed.
The child singer famous for performing Handel was Maria Poole, later Mrs Dickons, who was only six years old when she started performing, and who, engaged by Covent Garden in the 1790s, drew large crowds. The reference to ‘Betty’ is to a famous child actor who first trod the boards in December 1804 at the age of 13: William Henry West Betty (1791 -1874), known as ‘the Young Roscius’. Betty's father auditioned the boy before Michael Atkins, manager of the Belfast Theatre, who said ‘I never dared to indulge in the hope of seeing another Garrick, but I have seen an infant Garrick in Betty.’   


So far so trivial: nice to trace the poem (though it is a very minor piece of Coleridge), and to have a text closer, even if only in small ways, to what STC actually wrote. 

But here's the kicker: because, as you can see from the screenshot at the head of this post, The Spirit of the Public Journals prints ‘The Taste of the Times’ as a twofer, together with a similarly light-hearted political squib, ‘The Safety of the Country’:

                    — — Non deficit alter Aureus;
                 et simili frondescit virga metallo.


When Richmond's great Duke long ago sallied forth,
He entrench’d the whole country—south, east, west, and north;
For he held that this mis’rable nation of ours
Must be sav'd by mud walls, palisadoes, and towers.
Next Windham, with projects and crotchets quite new,
Comes forward (for he will be Quixotting too)
And with Crawfurd, as Sancho and Dapple to back him,
He defies all the windmills on earth to attack him;
Our army, which cost us such trouble to train,
He begs to set free, to enlist them again;
Our militia, he thinks, to our strength may conduce,
If, to make them more strong, you their numbers reduce;
While the poor volunteers, those unfortunate elves!
He dresses in green—to be kill'd by themselves:
And their leaders—whom fortune and rank may make prouder,
He mentions as proper provision for powder.
Jack Tar, who has heard them these projects discuss,
Exclaims— “Let them leave but the ocean to us;
We care not a jot what these lubbers are a’ter—
They shall find that the land shall be sav’d by the water.
”
             MILITARIS

Is this Coleridge too? JTC didn't think it worth copying-out into his memorandum book (perhaps it was too long; or perhaps he just didn't like it. It's not as witty as ‘The Taste of the Times’, I think). The target of this satire is William Windham, a member, like Petty, of the the Ministry of All the Talents in 1806–7. As Secretary for War and the Colonies, Windham undertook various reforms of the army (specifically, he abolished the ballot for the militia to ensure that it was staffed with volunteers rather than impressed men, and he limited service in the Army to seven years, hoping thereby to attract more recruits. This poem, clearly, thinks both measures bad ones.) The Latin epigraph is from Vergil, Aeneid 6:144-45 ‘[when the first bough is torn off], a second also of gold soon follows, and a new twig shoots forth leaves of the same metal.’ Though, as you can see, the poet has added a non to the start of this quotation, negating it: so once the first twig is torn off, no golden bough succeeds.

The pseudonym ‘Militaris’ is not one that Coleridge uses elsewhere, but so far as I can see neither did anyone else. I've searched for other poems by ‘Militaris’ and can't find any, either in the Morning Post (which can be searched at the British Newspaper Archives, although if you actually want to access the results of your search you need to pay them a subscription fee), or in any other publication of the period. And STC did use a variety of pseudonyms. It doesn't seem impossible to me that he might pick this name for a squib directed at the Secretary of State for War.

My main point is that the approach of both poems is the same: pick a member of the Ministry of All the Talents, then make fun of them by riffing on their name. In the first poem, it's ‘Petty’, as ‘petty’, ‘Pitt-y’ and ‘Betty’; in the second one ‘Windham’, as ‘Windmill’ and so to ‘Tilting at Windmills’, Don Quixote and all the rest (‘Dapple’, mentioned, is Sancho Panza's mule; Colonel Crawfurd was an MP and soldier who backed Windham's reforms in the House). What's funny about Petty is that he is so young. What's funny about Windham is that he's so Quixotic.

It really does seem that these two poems go together. So if the first is by Coleridge, then isn't it possible the second is too?



Sunday, 1 November 2020

Astounding Novel by John Coleridge!


 John Coleridge? Any relation, I wonder? Alas, no.
‘John Coleridge’ was one of the pseudonyms used by the US author brothers Earl Andrew Binder (1904-1966), who was born in Austria-Hungary and came to the US in 1910, and Otto Oscar Binder (1911-1975), who was the more active (and ultimately better known) of the two; after approximately 1934, when Earl became inactive as a writer, Otto continued to sign himself Eando Binder, so that some Eando Binder books – they were all published after 1940; several contain pre-1935 material – are collaborative and some by Otto alone. Together the brothers wrote eleven stories as John Coleridge and one as Dean D O'Brien, while Otto alone also wrote as Gordon A Giles and, later, as Ione Frances (or Ian Francis) Turek (forms of his wife's maiden name), did some work under the name Will Garth, and finally published a couple of novels under his own name. A third brother, Jack Binder was an illustrator who did much of the early drawing for Captain Marvel, which was regularly scripted by Otto. The brothers all retained the German pronunciation of their surname, with a short i.

Still: STC was certainly interested in ‘the life beyond ...’  



Water, Water Everywhere ...

 


Could these be Coleridge's most famous lines?

Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink. [Ancient Mariner (1834 version), lines 119-122]
Where did they come from? Out of Coleridge's pure imagination, perhaps. Still: ‘it is scarcely practicable for a man,’ as he once noted, ‘to write in the ornamented style on any subject without finding his poem, against his will and without his previous consciousness, a cento of lines that had pre-existed in other works’ [Griggs (ed), Coleridge: Collected Letters (1956-71), 3:469-70].

We know that Coleridge read Angelo Poliziano, or Politian (1454-94). He talks about him in Church and State [CC 10:64] and variously in the Marginalia and Notebooks [374, 1673, 2670]. And in the Biographia he mocks George Canning for plagiarising some Poliziano in his university prize-winning poem Iter ad Meccam, ‘The Pilgrimage to Mecca’:
‘In the Nutricia of Politian, there occurs this line:
“Pura coloratos interstrepit unda lapillos.”
Casting my eye on a University prize poem, I met this line:
“Lactea purpureos interstrepit unda lapillos.”
Now look out in the Gradus for purus, and you find, as the first synonyme, lacteus; for coloratus, and the first synonyme is purpureas. I mention this by way of elucidating one of the most ordinary processes in the ferrumination of these centos.’ [Biographia, ch 1]
Centos again. Coleridge's mind was running on questions of plagiary, advertent or inadvertent. The first line of Latin quoted there (it's from Poliziano’s Rustica rather than his Nutricia, but who's counting) means: ‘the pure stream goes murmuring over little coloured pebbles’. The plagiarised line means: ‘the milk-white stream goes murmuring over the little purple pebbles.’ Canning capped his time as a student at Oxford by winning the poetry prize in 1789. He went on, of course, to become Prime Minister. Here Coleridge pays back the ridicule Canning had subjected him to in his reactionary newspaper The Anti-Jacobin, by accusing the eminent statement of plagiary (‘ferrumination’ seals the joke: the Latin ferrumino means ‘to cement, solder, join’, and ‘soldering’ is, of course, the principle strategy involved in canning, a process patented in 1810). 

What does all this have to do with the Ancient Mariner? Well, here's one of Poliziano's more famous short poems, ‘In Amicam’ [Epigrammata, 64]:
Allicis, expellis, sequeris, fugis, es pia, et es trux;
   me vis, me non vis, me crucias, et amas.
promittis, promissa negas, spem mi eripis, et das.
   iam iam ego vel sortem Tantale malo tuam.
durum ferre sitim circum salientibus undis,
   durius in medio nectare ferre sitim.
P.'s ‘amica’ is the woman he loves, and her treatment of him is not consistent. Tricky to capture the compression of the Latin in English, mind. Here's a fairly slack version:
You lure me, you banish me; you follow, you flee; you're kind and are cruel;
   you want me, you don't want me; you torment me, you're in love.
You promise then deny your promise, you snatch away my hope and offer it.
   Right now I feel like Tantalus in wanting you:
how hard my thirst, surrounded by salty waves,
   how hard my thirst in the midst of such nectar!
Here's another version:
You tease, reject; follow, flee; are kind, cruel;
   want me, don't want; torment me, are loving.
You vow, break your vow, crush hope and give it.
   Right now I'm Tantalus in wanting you:
hard thirst surrounded by salty waves,
   hard in the midst of such nectar to thirst
That's probably a bit elliptical. At any rate, it strikes me that Coleridge's potent image of desperate thirst in the midst of salt water has an antecedent in Poliziano's little love poem. Then again, I'm not accusing him of Canning-like plagiary. These things register, sinking into the mulch of the creative imagination, and are reworked. By excerpting the image from Poliziano's mannered itinerary of erotic contrasts Coleridge frees it from its rather starchy wit and re-somatizes it as something universal, something indeed existential. Immature poets, as Eliot said, imitate, mature poets steal and good poets make what they take into something better.



Saturday, 24 October 2020

Kubla Khan Continued 2


Kubla Khan Continued 1 is here.

[This is part 2 of an occasional, and I'm perfectly aware pointless, series, in which I body-forth a possible completion of Coleridge's famous ‘Kubla Khan’. You know the story: out walking in the Somerset countryside, STC stopped off at a local farm (Adam Nicolson thinks it was Withycombe Farm in the village of Culbone, near Porlock) troubled with an attack of ‘dysentery’. He took a slug of opium to deal with his diarrhoea, blissed out for a while, and returned to consciousness with, so he claimed, ‘Kubla Khan’ fully formed in his head. Straightaway he began writing the poem out, only to be interrupted ‘by a person on business from Porlock’ who ‘detained by him above an hour’, such that ‘on his return to his room [he] found to his no small surprise and mortification, that though he still retained some vague and dim recollection of the general purpose of the vision, yet, with the exception of some eight or ten scattered lines and images, all the rest had passed away like the images on the surface of a stream into which a stone has been cast’. There is some reason to doubt the absolute verisimilitude of this account. And indeed, if we're honest, there are two ways, and not a third, of apprehending ‘Kubla Khan’ as a poem. One is to say, with Harold Bloom, that it's not only not a fragment, it's actually one of the most perfectly finished and perfect poems in English. The other is to take a more, let's say, Thomas McFarland approach and say: yes, it is a fragment, but its fragmentariness is integral to its effectiveness, and the urge to ‘complete’ it does a kind of violence to the text's evocative distinctiveness. Both possibilities exclude the notional third, that it's a fragment worth continuing. Still, here we are. Unable to offer any kind of defence of my actions at this point, in this place (although I do have a nascent Notes Towards a Theory of Aesthetic Defragmentation brewing) I shall step discretely back into the shadows, pausing only to note that I take my cue as to the possible direction Coleridge would have taken this poem, had he completed it, from this old post.]

PART II

The Khan’s Armada jostled in the bay
Barge, Warship, Doww,
Each keel, each prow
And chiming hollow hull
Clanging flank to flank
Innumerable in rank:
Whilst the tide strains full
Red marks the grisly sky at break of day
And gongs make signal to speed the boats away
Cutting sea as earth is cut by plough.

Depart! Depart!
For the far Nipponian shore
            And war!
Anchors upstart!
In long procession, more and more.
The last boat lingers on the breaking tide.
Three soul-expanding shouts the skies divide;
Three wild, responsive cheers re-echo wide.
All sweet vibration 
Tremble in the ear
As if in holy fear
Approaching the human mind
In humblest prostration.
The last delightful sounds they'll ever hear!

Still the white signal, fading, strains the eyes,
Still the lorn lover with his hand replies:
Till melting into air—the object lost
And duty sternly calling to his post,
Twixt him and joy th'eternal curtain's drawn,
No more of bliss to know returning dawn. 
Sailing a stilly sea, the fleet as one
Turns backward stern upon the setting sun.

How beautiful this ocean night!
Dewy stars supply the light,
No mist obscures, no little cloud
Breaks the whole serene of sky.
In full-swarmed glory starlights now
Flit firefly-like about the prow
As Kubla’s fleet skim silvery by:
Close hugging every warlike ark
The ocean’s bosom girdled with the dark.
How beautiful is night!

But, eye, descend, O descend!
To where the depths of water end
Bitumen-black bed of ocean's ground
Unlit, unseen, opaque to sound:
                         Descend!
Leave far above the never ceasing roar
Of titan-waves whose grip will break the shore
From rock to boulder and so to sand.
Descend to where air, sky and land
And merely phantasmic dreams:
To where all drowning bodies tend
To where hot seabed chasms rend
In utter silence and dark
                          Descend!
Blackening in ultimate deep
To where a timeless oozeing swells
To where ebon Atar, spirit, dwells
Compressed of ancient malice, half-asleep
Half-dreaming of all ruin’s creep
That spreads a boneless tentic arm
And wills man’s harm.

Ancestral spirits, they that drave
And urged proud Kublai on to war
Appearing flitting-wise in dreams
That sank, as all sinks, through ocean’s streams
Down to the monster in its cave
Within his dreaming dire and huge
With magick power of subterfuge
And mingling with the roar
Of the portentous tides
That under upper waters pour
Water slides and aye backslides.
Atar half-woke to half-declaim
In abysmal growl a spell infame:
He pronounced the deep unholy name.
Pronounced it thrice, pronounced it dire
To stir a whirlpool in that mire
That rose to where the waves aspire.

Whence enmity arose between
Th’ancestral powers of Xanadu
And this far-sunken power marine
None can tell the story true.
We only know Atar stands gainst
The Chinee empire pressing east:
And makes their coast impermious fence
Barring imperial ambition hence
Vowing they never be released.

Summoned by deep art, storms appear
Swift from the breezy north's assertive gales:
A raging hurl of tidal atmosphere
T’impel the course and swell the yielding sails
A rush the trembling craft past power to steer.

Before the sightless breeze the vessels fly
Clambers the mountain sea, t’approach the sky
And plunge again into the wave-trough nigh.
That now the refluent fleet evades the sight,
High-briny peaks and plunging water vales

Or thund'ring down the depths that foam below,
Ploughs up the surging brine with dashing prow.
The rattling cordage whirls, the sail-yards strain,
The winding pipe re-echoes o'er the main:

Firm in their stations ply the obedient crew,
To trim the lines, and strain the rudder
Haul on the beating sheets with sinew'd force,
Wrestling the vast machine’s unsteady course
Whist wind and magic make the beams shudder
               And darkness palls
               As wind heaps walls
Of water side on side to block all view.

A mast is rent
A keel is cracked
And down is sent
Ruined and racked
Warship and barge, small and large.
As gales crash in and fierce rebound
Ship after ship staggers and is drowned


*******

Far round the globe
Th’Abyssin mantissa rolls to white her eyes
And moans a magnifying chant.
She seats herself upon the earth,
Bows her head, tucks tight her robe
While hairgirt dwarfs their queen attend
Keeping holy distance til the trance doth end.* 

Phantoms of sublimity flit
Death and rebirth
A vision of a mighty fo'csle split
And crashed into the ocean
Reverberating through the depths
She sees how the winds bursting through
From ev'ry point are whirl'd, and still renew
Their circuit: rapid torrents gushing spray
In rivers that their tribute to the Ocean pay,
Whose vast will never overswell its shores.
For strait, in vapours, by the Sun exhaled
Or through Earth's secret caverns, it restores
All back again in misty cloudhead veiled.
So does the maiden’s hymn
Encircle back into its source
Web'd mystic beauties brim
Paths intricately retrouse.
The circled dome, the whirlpool’s grip!
Lamenting each engulféd ship.

He who crossed the waters
For rich Nippon’s land
With his many Sons and Daughters
And Armies to command.
Found them all the Children
Of one great Lord of Love
Whose Mercy from a thunderhead
Strikes scorpion-lightning in a spread
White antlers from above.
What the meed of her Song?
That the ceaseless on-flow
And myriad Echo
Which from the welcoming Hearts of the Pure
Repeats and works ever to prolong
Each difference Tone all meanings Just
Until in still-harmonious notes all crumbles into dust.

----------
* ‘In the middle of Abyssinia there are men called Pyganmies, who speak the same language as the other inhabitants of the country. They are very short, the tallest being only two cubits in height, most of them only one and a half. Their hair is very long, going down to the knees and even lower, and their beards are larger than those of any other men. When their beards are full grown they leave off wearing clothes and let the hair of their head fall down behind far below the knees, while their beard trails down to the feet in front. When their body is thus entirely covered with hair they fasten it round them with a girdle, so that it serves them for clothes. Their sheep are no bigger than lambs, their oxen, asses, horses, mules, and other beasts of burden about the size of rams. 3000 of them attend on the monarch of Abyssinia.’ Ctesius INDIKA