[Alder Ellis]

Hi Chris,

here's another bit from Coleridge (Aids to Reflection, as quoted by Owen Barfield in What Coleridge Thought):

"… in the world we see everywhere evidences of a unity, which the component parts are so far from explaining, that they necessarily presuppose it as the cause and condition of their existing as those parts; or even of their existing at all. This antecedent unity, or cause and principle of each union, it has since the time of Bacon and Kepler been customary to call a law."

This ties in to the definition of genius as "acting creatively under laws of its own origination."

I think the choice of molded clay to exemplify "mechanic" form was dubious on STC's part: the only "organic" form clay could assume is that of a shapeless blob. The more challenging distinction is between machine and organism. The parts of a machine & the organs of an organism are similarly describable in terms of functional relation of part to whole, and of course in scientific contexts organic bodies are often treated as being, not just metaphorically, but literally, machines. STC's distinction therefore depends acutely on the process by which the product is arrived at, as in your quotation: "it shapes, as it develops, itself from within." Is this a "botanical" metaphor? In a way, perhaps, but the assertion of this self-shaping power applies to the process of plant growth as well as to the process of imagination. It is really, for STC, the same process: the theory of imagination is also a theory of life. Or so Barfield convincingly argues -- if you're truly interested in this stuff you might want to look at What Coleridge Thought, it's a great book. (Many years since I read it, so I'm probably misrepresenting it.)

In the historical context, Coleridge is arguing against a tradition of intellectual condescension to Shakespeare which no longer exists, so it's kind of hard to appreciate where he's coming from. Shakespeare was bracketed off as being wild, untutored, remarkable in his way but not worthy of completely serious regard. Coleridge was among the first to take Shakespeare seriously in a way that we take for granted.

Regarding the appropriation of the "organic form" banner by latter day poetical schools or ideologies: one can only yawn. There is an all-too-obvious potential distinction between the "mechanical" regularity of formal verse and the "organic" irregularity of free verse, & no doubt this has been asserted many times, even though, as you point out, this is clearly not what Coleridge had in mind. The "mechanical" versus "organic" dichotomy and the "formal" versus "free verse" dichotomy have certain resemblances but are not the same: a tempting opportunity for lazy or unscrupulous rhetoric, but a difficult topic for serious thinking. As you say, the "organic" idea can be made to mean just about anything. But taken seriously, it is a subtle & challenging idea.

Re. RCL's posts: puts me in mind of Fahrenheit 451, where, in a world where all the books have been burned, people survive who have memorized the books. RCL would be the guy who has memorized Emerson & Thoreau. What brilliant quotations! Note to self: really gotta read Walden again before I die (or before it gets burned) ….