Talk:Samuel Taylor Coleridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Source?

To whoever added the biography: What's the source? Is it in the public domain? It sounds rather like 19th-century English, so it probably wasn't written recently. It's also not complete accurate, again reminiscent of something written in the 19th or early 20th centuries. Please clarify? -- Marj 07:31 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the text is from, but it reads like it could be from a 1911 Encyclopedia, which would be copyright-fine, and explain your concerns about language and accuracy. Article's beginning to look somewhat better :) Atorpen 03:41 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) -- Marj 00:03 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

New material

I've done a series of edits adding some links and references, and adding details on his childhood and the opium question. Markalexander100 08:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Editions

Could someone please recommend me a complete edition of Coleridges's works? If someone knows of other good editions of the rest of the romantics, particularly Wordsworth (I know an old hardcover one, but I'm looking for something perhaps more sound and cheaper) I'd also like to know. Thanks. 200.141.237.165 15:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Try the oxford anthology of english literature, bloom & trilling, oxford univ press, cpyrt 1973Qleem 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you want the Complete Poems, then the Penguin edition edited by William Keach is best. The OUP 'Oxford World Classics' edition (entitled Major Works) is a better overview, since it collects most of the poetry, along with important selections of the prose, and all of Biographia Literaria. For the other Romantics, again, I'd recommend the OUP editions, although the Penguin and Norton ones are also good. Norton editions have selections from 20th century criticism in them. The absolute best Coleridge editions, incidentally, are the Bollingen collected works, but they are very, very expensive.

• Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. General ed., Kathleen Coburn. London: Routledge and K. Paul; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969-. PR 4470 F69 Kevinhowarth 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

The sections in which Coleridge's definitions of the nature of poetry and the imagination – his famous distinction between primary and secondary imagination on the one hand and fancy on the other – are especially interesting.
This doesn't make sense, what should it say? - Adrian Pingstone 21:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Markalexander100 03:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

last modification is garbage?

Seems to me that the last modification to the wiki just made the page a mess...

--66.11.160.167 21:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Skin?

I know I heard something a few years ago about the discovery of a lost Coleridge manuscript, written on what they thought might be a large flap of Coleridge's skin. Anyone know any more about this? DS 15:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

last addition

Check out the last addition on coleridge's life

last addition

Check out the last addition on coleridge's life...who would of thought he was gay?-- 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC) His Mum Was A Hoe

Homosexual Issue

The Novotel Encyclopedia (1911) gives sufficient evidence of the controversy surrounding the orientation of coleridge as a bisexual.

The Novotel Encyclopedia, of course, had an observer in Coleridge's bedroom, possibly behind the bureau or night stand. That writer would have been able to provide an eye witness account, I am sure. Why don't we save the homosexual interest group a great deal of effort and just declare that everyone in world history is or was homosexual?Lestrade 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I thought so. I must be the odd one out. Rintrah 16:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The only mystery , with everyone in the world a homosexual, and it being such a natural and acceptable sort of behavior, is that there are so many millions of people in the world.Lestrade 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Sex sex sex

He also was reported to have been, according to Dorothy Wordsworth, a "terrible lover" and "one whose realm is not that of the land twixt the sheets". Is this real, or vandalism? How on earth would Dorothy know what happened twixt Coleridge's sheets? The only Google results for this quote are from our mirrors. Mark¹ 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they were lovers pehaps? (Anon)

But why would one think they were? Mark¹ 10:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Christabel.

Why does the link to the article on "Christabel" simply redirect to the Coleridge one?

I changed it, and put in its place a stub about the poem. Someone else will have to expand it, becauses I haven't read the poem itself, only the preface. Marksman45 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

ISBN 0-321-13007-3

Effect of Opium

The article states that the effect of opium was not generally known in Coleridge's time. In 1839, the following was written:

[B]y means of wine or opium we can intensify and considerably heighten our mental powers, but as soon as the right measure of stimulus is exceeded, the effect will be exactly the opposite

— Schopenhauer, On the Freedom of the Will, Ch. III

Lestrade 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

- only 5 years after STC died then!Johnbod 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

De Quincey wrote in 1821. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article didn't say that the effects of opium were not known at all during that time, it says they were not well known. Opium was being used very commonly back then, it was basically the aspirin of their time, and few knew of it's addictive properties, although many soon found out about the pleasures it could bring and its crashes.

Entry missing

Why is the entire article missing? nicolasqueen 19 September 2006

New Low

Wikipedia is touching bottom today with its inclusion of popular culture references in its articles. "Heavy Metal band Iron Maiden recorded a song titled Rime of the Ancient Mariner - based on the poem by Coleridge - on their 1984 album Powerslave." Isn't there a rap "song" out there with some reference to Coleridge?Lestrade 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

People from Porlock

I see there is a Category for the above - 1 entry, Acland, a cabinet minister under Lloyd George I think. Crying out for an entry on the most famous "person from Porlock" I think, by someone with the references to hand Johnbod 17:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Citizen Kane

Rather surprised at the absence of surely the most famous cultural reference about Xanadu, Kane's mansion, I added one, but a bot for some reason promptly objected to this ... Straw Cat 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to your edit summary you didnt actually add it, just deleted some other stuff, check the history Qleem 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural References

I've retrieved the most significant of the cultural references deleted by BuddingJournalist and placed them here:

• JD Salinger mentioned Coleridge when asked about his literary influences, saying “A writer, when he's asked to discuss his craft, ought to get up and call out in a loud voice just the names of the writers he loves. I love Kafka, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Dostoyevsky, Proust, O'Casey, Rilke, Lorca, Keats, Rimbaud, Burns, Brontë, Austen, James, Blake, Coleridge. I won't name any living writers. I don't think it's right.”
• In Rites of Passage by William Golding, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Coleridge are frequently referenced to show the movement towards a new Romantic sensibility

Perhaps they can find a home elsewhere in the article per WP:TRIV.--Ethicoaestheticist 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Coleridge and the influence of the Gothic

Coleridge wrote some reviews of popular Gothic novels of the period, and was plainly influenced by the popular fashion for all things Gothic, so I suggest we include this text to reflect that - I'll leave it a few days to see if anybody wants to comment:

Gothic fiction like Polidori’s The Vampire, Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto, Mrs Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho and The Italian, and Matthew Lewis’s The Mad Monk were the best-sellers of the end of the eighteenth century, and thrilled many young women (who were often strictly forbidden to read them). Jane Austen satirised the style mercilessly in Northanger Abbey.

Coleridge wrote reviews of Mrs Radcliffe’s books and of The Mad Monk among others. He comments in his reviews:

Situations of torment, and images of naked horror, are easily conceived; and a writer in whose works they abound, deserves our gratitude almost equally with him who should drag us by way of sport through a military hospital, or force us to sit at the dissecting-table of a natural philosopher. To trace the nice boundaries, beyond which terror and sympathy are deserted by the pleasurable emotions, - to reach those limits, yet never to pass them, hic labor, hic opus est.

and:

The horrible and the preternatural have usually seized on the popular taste, at the rise and decline of literature. Most powerful stimulants, they can never be required except by the torpor of an unawakened, or the languor of an exhausted, appetite... We trust, however, that satiety will banish what good sense should have prevented; and that, wearied with fiends, incomprehensible characters, with shrieks, murders, and subterraneous dungeons, the public will learn, by the multitude of the manufacturers, with how little expense of thought or imagination this species of composition is manufactured.

However, Coleridge used mysterious and demonic elements in poems such as The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (1798), Christabel and Kubla Khan (published 1816 but known in manuscript form before then) and certainly influenced other poets and writers of the time. Poems like this both drew inspiration from and helped to inflame the craze for Gothic romance.

Mary Shelley, who knew Coleridge well, mentions The Rime of the Ancient Mariner twice directly in Frankenstein, and some of the descriptions in the novel echo it indirectly. Although William Godwin, her father, disagreed with Coleridge on some important issues, he respected his opinions and Coleridge often visited the Godwins. Mary Shelley later recalled hiding behind the sofa and hearing his voice chanting The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

Common source is more likely for much of this; the Gothicks are indebted to German literature, which Coleridge knew first hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Biographia Literaria

I am pleased to see this applied to the article; but do we need quite so much of it? We are telling Coleridge's life in a page, not expounding his aesthetics in two volumes.

Also, as an annotated edition will make clear, Coleridge was of course writing from memory, and got some things (probably not these) wrong. For matters on which there are likely to be other sources, like magazines and his lecture tours, it should be checked with a modern biography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The race of Samuel Coleridge Taylor

There seems to be a minor revert war going on over this, so can we discuss it here? The question seems to be whether it is worth noting that the British composer Samuel Coleridge Taylor, whose parents named him after Samuel Coleridge, was black. I recall, but have no present source, that it was at one time rumoured that Coleridge himself had black ancestry, because of some supposed features on his portraits, and wonder if that particular story was the reason for the choice of name. If this could be clarified and added into that section about Coleridge-Taylor, then it might be worth noting the colour of C-T's skin. Otherwise I think a case needs to be made for why it should be included.--Guinevere50 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Coleridge-Taylor should be described as a Black British composer. I don't really understand why anyone would want to leave out information that could assist the reader. The reference to him though, in the article (apart from the disambig link), really amounts to trivia - relevant to the Coleridge-Taylor article but not the STC one - and the extensive trivia section was removed from the article a while back, thankfully.--Ethicoaestheticist 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And quite frankly, Coleridge-Taylor is much more notable as a black composer, a quite sparse set before 1950 or so, than he is as a composer. I simply see no reason for shaving the word and identifying him less precisely. Black British would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, especially as it allows us us to link to black British so I've altered it accordingly.--Guinevere50 20:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern influence of Samuel Coleridge Taylor

I thought it might be interesting to add in information on the modern influence of STC. Off the top of my head, the band Rush wrote the song "Xanadu" on their "A Farewell to Kings" album, which was an adaptation of Coleridge's Kubla Khan. Additionally, the band Iron Maiden adapted "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" into a 10+ minute song on their Powerslave album. Any others?

Well, part three of the Nightwish song "Beauty of the Beast" (Century Child album) is called Christabel, and if I recall correctly the song makes a few references to Coleridge's poem, although it's not really based on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.251.169 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Emerson

I assume that the Emerson referred to a couple of times is Ralph Waldo, but hesitate to disambiguate the link on the off chance I'm wrong (this really isn't my area of expertise). Could somebody who knows for sure fix the link? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Divorce ?

Concerning Coleridge's marriage with Sarah Fricker, I don't recall to have ever read that he eventually divorced her. He intended to at some point and they lived separately most of the time but they never actually did divorce (mainly because Sarah Coleridge was very much against the idea), unless I'm mistaken. I'm pretty sure I didn't read that fact in Richard Holmes's Biography of Coleridge. I also recall letters of the later Coleridge naming his wife. If anyone knows a source mentioning this divorce, could he/she please share his/her knowledge ? At any rate, I'll investigate further and in case there is no divorce ever mentioned, I'll modify the assertion about it, which imho is not correct. -- Shangdou (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right and I have changed it to say he separated, unless someone has a source for saying he divorced. --Straw Cat (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

large unwikified section.

This was added at the beginning of the article. some of it should be worked into the appropriate sections, wikified and sourced. Samuel Taylor Coleridge was born in Ottery St. Mary on 21 October 1772, youngest of the ten children of John Coleridge, a minister, and Ann Bowden Coleridge. He was often bullied as a child by Frank, the next youngest, and his mother was apparently a bit distant, so it was no surprise when Col1 ran away at age seven. He was found early the next morning by a neighbor, but the events of his night outdoors frequently showed up in imagery in his poems (and his nightmares) as well as the notebooks he kept for most of his adult life. John Coleridge died in 1781, and Col was sent away to a London charity school for children of the clergy. He stayed with his maternal uncle2. Col was really quite a prodigy; he devoured books and eventually earned first place in his class.

His brother Luke died in 1790 and his only sister Ann in 1791, inspiring Col to write "Monody," one of his first poems, in which he likens himself to Thomas Chatterton3. Col was very ill around this time and probably took laudanum for the illness, thus beginning his lifelong opium addiction. He went to Cambridge in 1791, poor in spite of some scholarships, and rapidly worked himself into debt with opium, alcohol, and women. He had started to hope for poetic fame, but by 1793, he owed about £150 and was desperate. So he joined the army.

His family was irate when they finally found out. He'd used the improbable name of Silas Tomkyn Comberbache and had escaped being sent to fight in France because he could only barely ride a horse. His brother George finally arranged his discharge by reason of insanity and got him back to Cambridge. It was there that he met Robert Southey, and they became instant friends. Both political radicals4, they began planning Pantisocracy, their own socio-political movement5. Robert was already engaged to a woman named Edith Fricker, and introduced Col to her sister Sara. Within a few weeks, Col was willing to marry Sara, which he did in October of 1795. Robert and Col had started arguing over Pantisocracy, and finally Robert agreed to his family's wish that he become a lawyer instead of emigrating. Robert's best gift to posterity was the fact that he introduced Col to William Wordsworth. It was Col's misfortune that he met Sara6 Hutchinson through William, who would eventually marry Sara H.'s sister. Col fell in love with this Sara almost immediately, putting an extra strain on an already iffy marriage.

With his marriage, Col tried very hard to become responsible7. He scraped together a fairly respectable income of £120 per year, through tutoring and gifts from his admirers8. His Poems, published in 1797, was well-received and it looked like he was on the fast track to fame. He already had one son, David Hartley Coleridge, born September 1796, followed by Berkeley Coleridge in May 17989. In 1798, the famous Lyrical Ballads was published, the collaboration between Col and William which pretty much created the Romantic movement. The authors didn't realize this at the time, of course; they went to Germany with William's sister Dorothy. Col's son Berkeley died while he was away; the baby had been given the brand-new smallpox vaccination and died of a reaction to it. Col, as was typical of him, returned home slowly so as not to have to deal openly with Berkeley's death, and got little work done.

After a string of illnesses brought on by the damp climate of the Lake Country, Col turned to newspaper work in 1801 to try and recover financially. He was convinced he would die soon, and insured his life shortly after the birth of his daughter Sara10 in 1802. In 1804, he left for Malta in hopes of a cure from the warm climate. Here, he spied a bit for his majesty11, who wanted Malta as a British port, though officially Col was the temporary Public Secretary. Col had also hoped for a release from his addiction, but this was not to be. He returned to England in 1806, and, plucking up his courage, asked for a legal separation from his wife. Though Sara was furious, the separation happened. Col's paranoia and mood swings, brought on by the continual opium use, were getting worse, and he was hardly capable of sustained work12. His friendship with William was all but nonexistent, and Col was again writing newspaper articles to earn a living, further supplemented by various lecture courses13. Most of his remaining work was non-fiction, except for a play or two, and included such works as Biographia Literaria(1817), a work on nearly everything14.

He was still haunted by his failure to break free from opium, however, and to this end he moved into the house of an apothecary named James Gillman, asking Gillman to help cut back his opium dose. Like all addicts, though, Col quickly had an alternate supply arranged. Col had apparently separated from his children as well; his friends and relatives had to take up a collection to send Hartley to school, and at one point, he went 8 years without seeing his children15. His London friends, though, loved his conversational skills and continually sought him out. His nephew, Henry Nelson Coleridge16, published a collection of Col's conversation called Table Talk, and Col himself was not only publishing new works, like Aids to Reflection(1825), but was reprinting the old in hopes of finally making a real financial contribution to his family. By 1830, the reviews of his work were becoming more and more positive, and he was generally hailed as the finest critic of his day17. He still couldn't reach financial security, however; a government reorganization lost him his pension from the Royal Society of Literature, his one remaining reliable source of income. He died, surprisingly peacefully, on 25 July 1834, leaving only books and manuscripts behind.

Though he's really only known today for his poetry, Col's contributions to the field of criticism and our language were many. For instance, he not only coined the word 'selfless,' he introduced the word 'aesthetic' to the English language. Charles Lamb wrote one of my favorite descriptions of Col in 1817: "his face when he repeats his verses hath its ancient glory, an Arch angel a little damaged." Cole summed himself up this way, in the epitaph he wrote for himself:

--Jieagles (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Politics

Nothing in the article about Coleridge's shift to Toryism by 1809? He was the premier conservative philosopher in Britain during the nineteenth century, even J.S. Mill famously acknowledged him as such. It's not a negligible aspect of his legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.201.185 (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is correct. Coleridge was a very important conservative thinker of the 19th century in Britain, this deserves a mention as does the fact he was at least as influenced by the British, Christian tradition of those like Hooker, the Cambridge Platonists and Burke as he was by any German idealism. 122.106.255.15 (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Though it is true that Coleridge was, in some respects, a leading conservative philosopher, I think the reason that no one has ventured much concerning his politics here is that his ideas are difficult, mixed, fragmentary, and not strictly conservative in the orthodox sense. He had his own form of conservatism, and like Ruskin, has been called a Christian socialist. David Calleo wrote a book in the 1960s called Coleridge and the Idea of the Modern State which discusses Coleridge's unique form of conservatism. I can't remember the Coleridge scholar who became famous for calling him a Christian socialist - maybe someone else can recall. Anyway, whoever tackles this subject has to be subtle and knowledgeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbycairo (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Looking through my things, I realize it was Basil Willey who called Coleridge a Christian Socialist. I don't know if this is an entirely fitting description but to simply call Coleridge a conservative is, I believe, also misleading. Coleridge clearly didn't have a lot of faith in universal suffrage, but he was not fond of the aristocracy either and he despised the "Tory reactionaries" of his time. I think it is safe to say that Coleridge was a 'gradualist' who hoped that the moral and philosophical standards of the race would improve over time and allow for a much more equal and just society. However, given that the same could be said of William Godwin, it is difficult to simply say that Coleridge was a 'conservative' in the same sense that many of his contemporaries were. Though he was not a 'radical' or a republican in the sense that Paine or Hazlitt were, he was definitely 'progressive' in a number of ways that many of his contemporaries were not. [[[User:Kirbycairo|Kirbycairo]] (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)]

He was only "not a Conservative" in the modern American sense of the term because the American Right is a relatively recent invention. He was certainly no fan of free-market economists. But leading British intellectuals of the time like William Hazlitt and John Stuart Mill considered him a Conservative in the context of nineteenth century Britain, and I think their judgment is more pertinent than those of revisionist scholars who chafe at acknowledging the conservative and/or right-wing views of renowned writers. For example, how come I never see anyone claim, "to simply call him a Socialist is, I believe, misleading and reductive" or something along those lines? There is just as much diversity of opinion among right-wingers as there is among left-wingers. Okay, maybe the right doesn't have anything to match the four hundred different denominations of Marxism, but you get the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.201.185 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, just because Rose Luxemburg criticized the Bolsheviks does not mean she ceased being a Marxist, just because George Orwell spent lots of time criticizing other Socialists does not mean he was not a Socialist. So just because the Tory Coleridge criticized other Tories does not mean he was not a Tory himself at the time, and attempting to compare his Tory views to the radical William Godwin on anything beyond the most superficial level is just laughable.

And while "revisionist" might be too strong a word for someone like Basil Willey, there is certainly a long history of literary critics recasting the views of famous writers to make them more "acceptable" or similar to their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.201.185 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The above commentator certainly seems to have a serious ax to grind, and I believe an overly simplistic one. It just isn't as simple as this Unsigned comment leads us to believe. A good example of why is found in the fact that a "radical" like Tom Paine would not, by 20th century standards, be a radical because he had almost zero faith in state intervention. Given that both Coleridge and Paine (to say nothing of Hazlitt) lived before a time in which people could imagine dependable government services created on behalf of the working-class or the lumpen-proletariat, they were all suspicious of big-government because it meant something significantly different to them. I don't think just because he lived in the age, that Hazlitt had any privileged status to tell us who was or wasn't Conservative. Furthermore, Hazlitt was notoriously biased concerning Coleridge. I still contend that Coleridge was not conservative in the normal sense of the word because for most of his life he 1.Didn't trust the motives and the power of the 'ruling-class.' 2. He didn't trust nor did he seem to like the capitalist-class nor the capitalist effort. 3. He thought that society as it had evolved was profoundly unjust and this injustice had to be changed. 4. Unlike more notorious conservatives of his age Coleridge, even during his later years, was at pains to say that neglecting the needs and desires of the working-class would lead to revolution and this was perfectly understandable and even justified in Coleridge's mind. Furthermore, it is certainly not "laughable" to compare Godwin and Coleridge - they both had very similar goals and gradualist strategies. In Coleridge's 1795 lectures and his Watchman, Coleridge defined himself in contrast as well as in relation to the ideas of Godwin. They both spoke for non-violent, gradualist moral changes in society to a more just and equal system. The biggest difference was that Godwin's change was within the context of atheism and Coleridge's was in the context of Christian faith. Arguably, Godwin's radical credentials are overblown, and Coleridge's Conservative one are similarly overblown. This conversation could go on but there is not enough space here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbycairo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I came here to learn something about Coleridge's political philosophy. I find this three year old discussion about how it should probably be mentioned, but then it isn't. I bet if he was a leftist this would have been fixed instantly. Thanks Wikipedia!

article cleanup

Hello all; I just wanted to add a few ideas to help clean up the article and see what others think.

• The "Early Life" section needs to contain less direct quotations and more biographical information from reliable sources.
• Most of the content in "Pantisocracy and marriage" can be kept if citations can be found to support, but facts that are not verifiable need to be removed, and the strange text box in the center needs to be placed into context or removed.
• "Later life, and increasing drug use" can be shortened and referenced. I think that the drug use issue is probably less important than the poetry that made him famous, so I would put that below his poetry section and keep the size of text dealing with that issue in proportion to the influence it had on his life and poetry.
• The "Poetry" section can be expanded and broken into subgroups, with direct references to poems and deeper discussion of his importance. I propose individual sections for The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Kahn.
• The "Influence of Gothic" section can be wikified to remove large text quotations without relevent topic discussion and should contain info from a wider variety of sources. I think it could probably be changed to reflect more than just his influence on gothic; perhap changed to "Influence on Literatre" with a subsection on Gothic.
• The "External Links" can probably use some trimming Mrathel (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any questions. I plan to gather sources and begin working on this by the end of the day.Mrathel (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the quotations are overwhelming; I'd suggest we cut them all down. What about the forked article Coleridge and opium? Could that be reincorporated here (once it's sourced properly, of course)? I agree with your thoughts on the "Influence of Gothic" section needing to be broader. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can clean up the early life section (first, and I can work on other things later). I will come up with something and post it on the talk page for discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the poetry section. The problem I see on a first reading is that it is devoid of critical references, even though it sounds authoritative. I like Mrathel's suggestion of breaking out Rime & Kubla as subsections. I'm willing to take a look at the paragraph on "conversation poems" and see what can be developed from it; it's a pretty strong claim that these were his greatest influence. Perhaps this could become a subsection also. Easchiff (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

His criticism also needs a section. Biographia Literaria is a major reason why he is such a high priority in the Wiki project. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My best efforts, I think, would be in adding citations to the biographical details. I'll focus on that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am having a hard time gettings started on the "Poetry" section as trying to incorporate the current analysis into meaningful text proves difficult. I may end up scrapping the majority of the text and starting anew, as trying to categorize the current presentation of his poetry is causing my head to spin. I am trying to decide if I should arrange the poetry on a chronological basis or if I should just go by importance. Mrathel (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that we'll end up scrapping most of the present section. It's too bad, because I think the editors knew what they were talking about. To avoid piecemeal revision, should we create a sandbox somewhere and build this section there? I've found a lot of Coleridge scholarship already just on the "conversation poems". If I'm going to work on that, it'll take me a while; I'm starting with no specific knowledge. Easchiff (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you pick the sandbox, I'll play in it. My internet at home has been on the fritz, so I have not gotten any work done. Also, I have found a few sources talking about Coleridge as a crtitic: Eliot in Selected Prose and Hugh Kenner in Historical Fictions. I think it would be advantageous for us to start a criticism section as well and let people unload their sources into it along with info on the poems. Mrathel (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's give it a try. You can find my working notes for the "Conversation Poems" at User:Easchiff/Sandbox2; feel free to add your own material, and to modify mine, as it seems convenient. At least we can share references this way! I'm sure you're correct about the need for a Criticism section, but we don't have to do it all immediately. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this but the related link "Biographical essay on Coleridge by Mike Philips at the British library. Retrieved 2010-10-19" is the wrong Samuel Coleridge, and therefore a irrelevant link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.234.40 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it. Thanks for flagging it up. Span (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of his Notebooks should be mentioned.James Hercules Sutton 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesSutton (talk • contribs)

Early life

Here is part of what I have for the early life. It is about 60% finished. I should have the rest completed later. This is just to give everyone a sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The below section is about 80% complete. Any suggestions or comments? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just put it in; we can work on the bio stuff on the main space. I think the Criticism/Poetic style stuff will be harder to work on, so that makes more sense to do on a work space. Oh, and I dislike quote boxes. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want, we can remove the quotes completely or just make a page devoted to his early life and keep them there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer removal. I'm also worried about unnecessarily adding length to this article. Between all of us, I think we'll be able to make this pretty substantial without such long quotes. Do you use them for aesthetic purposes? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is only 30k with formatting. That places it at about 70% below normal size for these articles. Anything shorter than 80k will have cries of incomplete. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We're already incomplete - that's why we're working on it now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make an early life page like the other major poets. I'll put in a four paragraph summary of it for the main article when I am finished. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(undenting) I strongly disagree with a forked article on early life; I think it just makes them clunky. No one's early life is so important so as to need such detail. I'm not sure which "other major poets" utilize this, but none of my featured or good articles do (many of which are poetry-related). --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. Samuel Johnson's early life is featured. Also, William Wordsworth, Byron, Milton, and others have pages devoted to their early lives. There are also many non-poets (such as Darwin) that have pages devoted to their early lives. This is standard for major authors. However, I'm beginning to think that I will be unable to work with you on this, as I have no faith in your knowledge of such complex articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure my list of Wikipedia accomplishments (nevermind professional ones) are irrelevant so I won't bring them up. I also shouldn't mention that all the examples you gave of what is becoming "standard for major authors" were, in fact, articles created by you personally (does that show consensus, or an inability to follow summary style?). Regardless, I'm no longer interested in assisting in the development of this article. Good luck. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the sentence "He was the youngest of thirteen children, though ten of them were by his father, the Reverend John Coleridge, and a second wife." He had 10 half-sibs? Can't this all be said more clearly, if more verbosely? Myron (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima/Samuel Coleridge's early life - If you have any doubts, verify there. He was the youngest child of the second wife. It is incomplete, but it goes into further detail on many of the problematic sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Early life

This is what I have so far for an early life page. It is roughly 80% done (text wise, sans images, of which there are 6/7 to add). As you can see, it focuses on important career development and nothing fluffy. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

The early life page is mostly complete (there will be a same expansion) and the new early poems are almost complete. Once I finish that set, I will work on his conversation poems and then his sonnets to eminent men. That should cover 90%+ of his notable poems before 1798. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've drafted a section on the Conversation poems which is just about ready to post. Please take a look at User:Easchiff/Sandbox2. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. We should probably think about condensing the Harper stuff together and then expand it on a page devoted to the Conversation poems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me think about how to condense Harper; I like for a main article to give a taste of the poetry, but maybe I could cut out or shorten the quote noting Milton. At that point, and allowing for some technical work on page numbers, etc., I'd be happy to post it as a subsection under "Poetry" and let anyone else have at it. Thankfully, the reference scheme in the main article seems compatible with the one I used.

Let me know how you think we should proceed; I know you're interested in working on a real article for the Conversation poems, and I agree with you that they're certainly interesting enough for one. I still have some work to do over at Wikisource. I fixed up a few of the poems, so I think 4 of them are in decent shape. The others need some work. Easchiff (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Later life, and increasing drug use

I think this section needs to be broken down into at least two sections. Drug use can probably exist on its own, or it can be mixed into the biography less abruptly with "Later life" and "Opium Addiction and Death" sections or something of the sort. Also I don't think that the website cited for the discussion of Faustus is really the best source we can find on the subject. I appologize for my lack of support in this, but real life tends to strike when you least expect it:) Mrathel (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the insufficiency of the Faust translation reference; that webpage does list lots of primary references, however. It's a small job; perhaps I can get to it in the next few days. Your suggestions for the biographical sections seem on target to me. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of plagiarism from German-language sources

There should be mention of the extent to which Coleridge copied ideas and writing(s) from German-language sources (passing them off as his own).Historian932 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Family

His daughter Sara Coleridge, sons Hartley Coleridge and Derwent Coleridge, grandson Ernest Hartley Coleridge, and granddaughter Christabel Coleridge all have their own wikipedia entries which link back here, but the only mention of any of his family in this entry appears to be the linked portrait of his daughter Sara. The omission of his children and grandchildren from a general biographical article seems odd, especially as some of them edited various editions of his works, and are considered notable enough to have entries in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filigree11 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The article does need more detail on the family. Please do add. Spangle (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the required time or expertise to add a new section to the proper standard: I'm merely bringing this to the attention of the more knowledgeable people who wrote the entry.Filigree11 (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Samuel Taylor Coleridge at age 42.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Samuel Taylor Coleridge at age 42.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 21, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 21:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An engraving of English philosopher and poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834), most famous for his poems The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan. Coleridge was a member of the Lake Poets who, with his friend William Wordsworth, founded the Romantic Movement in England. He also helped introduce German idealism to English-speaking culture and was influential on American transcendentalism (via Ralph Waldo Emerson). Throughout his adult life, Coleridge suffered from crippling bouts of anxiety and depression, which he chose to treat with opium, becoming an addict in the process. He died at age 61 due to symptoms typical of prolonged opium usage.Engraving: Samuel Cousins; Artist: Washington Allston; Restoration: Lise Broer

Merge

A merge with Coleridge and opium was suggested in 2008 and it seems, never followed up. I suggest this article should also be merged with Early life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge - wholly or at least partially. There is much repetition in the three. This main Coleridge article is patchy and has almost no citation. I think, putting the three together would raise it considerably. I'm not sure if Ottava Rima had been planning to go for an FA and put it on hold, but it seems we should use what we presently have and back it up with good sources where we need them. There's a lot of good work here. Thoughts? Span (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Period in Shrewsbury

I have added a paragraph, entirely cited to An Illustrated Literary Guide to Shropshire (1987) by Gordon Dickins, detailing a period of a few months (dates December 1797-February 1798), when he also worked as locum to the Unitarian minister in Shrewsbury, reputedly read The Rime of the Ancient Mariner at a literary evening, preached a probationary sermon, met William Hazlitt, and received means to give up a ministry career.Cloptonson (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Coleridge

The file File:Samuel Taylor Coleridge portrait.jpg doesn't look like Coleridge to me; hair too short and doesn't correspond with other contemporary portraits from 1790s. Possibly Charles Lloyd? --Jotoro (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And he was a male poet

Just before the sub-heading "West Midlands and the North", there is a sentence which reads: "And he was a male poet". This seems like a superfluous sentence, as that he was a male poet is obvious from the rest of the article. Vorbee (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no list of his published works?

With the original publication dates. Surely this is essential information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.143.243 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)