In this Preface, Coleridge claims that Wordsworth extends this style of poetry to all kinds and rejects poetry that does not include the language of “real life” (Coleridge, XIV).

But when the second edition was published, Coleridge thought Wordsworth’s poetry to be heterogeneous. In other words, Wordsworth was to awaken the romantic beauty of nature to his readers. It was understood to Coleridge that Wordsworth’s “assignment” was, as Coleridge quoted, to write poetry that would “propose to himself as his object, to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind’s attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us.” (Coleridge, XIV). He claims this was stated to Wordsworth, but believes it was not accurately represented in the Preface (Shulz). Conversely, Coleridge states that he believes poetry should have some “passion” and that passion is present in metre. Instead, Wordsworth wants to emphasize and adopt the language of men, which rejects personification as a “mechanical device of style, or as a family language which Writers in metre seem to lay claim to by prescription” (preface, 9). In breaking away from the overdecorated style, Wordsworth states that “personifications of abstract ideas rarely occur in these volumes and are utterly rejected, as an ordinary device to elevate the style, and raise it above prose” (preface, 9). Where they differ, though, is under the topic of meter and personification. This is similar to what Coleridge claims about the artificiality of aristocratic taste. In the Preface, Wordsworth describes his desire to break away from the overdecorated style of 18th century poetry and create a comprehensible art form for the “ordinary man”. These are not necessarily the most important issues of the Preface however, they are issues that illustrate visible gaps between the two poets. I will focus on the “ordinary”, the role of poetry and the poet, and the poet’s response to public taste and opinion. He emphasizes various points stating his opinion regarding poetry of the time. In Wordsworth’s 1880 Preface he sets out his poetic position. In this page, I am going to show some of the major points where Coleridge is not in accord with Wordsworth, and how this gives a sense of each poet’s poetic style. Coleridge’s opinions do not clash completely with Wordsworth’s, but there are definite disparities among the t wo. After its publication, Coleridge’s disagreement with Wordsworth’s preface began to surface through his writing of Biographia Literaria as well as other letters and essays. So even though the Lyrical Ballads was a collaborative effort, it was Wordsworth who added the preface in the 1800 edition and refined in 1802. Since it was his idea, Coleridge was supposed to write the Preface but, he never did leaving Wordsworth to write it under a very harsh time crunch (Shulz). He wanted the public to know that his and Wordsworth’s poetry was more real and therefore, would be more everlasting. In one of his journal entries on the topic, Coleridge mentions the “artificiality and impermanence of poetic fashion with aristocratic taste” (Shulz).

After the Lyrical Ballads was written, Coleridge wanted to write a Preface so that he could clarify his poetic style and eliminate many criticisms that were coming to light about their new writing. Only four poems in Lyrical Ballads are written by Coleridge and all remaining by Wordsworth (refer to the table of contents link). Both Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge were inspired to produce this book of poetry through many intellectual conversations. However, as many understand, the Lyrical Ballads was a collaborative effort. This page is found under the author, William Wordsworth.

Lyrical writing style