‘Could a rule be given from without, poetry would cease to be poetry, and sink into a mechanical art. It would be μóρφωσις, not ποίησις. The rules of the IMAGINATION are themselves the very powers of growth and production. The words to which they are reducible, present only the outlines and external appearance of the fruit. A deceptive counterfeit of the superficial form and colours may be elaborated; but the marble peach feels cold and heavy, and children only put it to their mouths.’ [Coleridge, Biographia ch. 18]

‘ποίησις’ (poiēsis) means ‘a making, a creation, a production’ and is used of poetry in Aristotle and Plato. ‘μóρφωσις’ (morphōsis) in essence means the same thing: ‘a shaping, a bringing into shape.’ But Coleridge has in mind the New Testament use of the word as ‘semblance’ or ‘outward appearance’, which the KJV translates as ‘form’: ‘An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form [μóρφωσις] of knowledge and of the truth in the law’ [Romans 2:20]; ‘Having a form [μóρφωσις] of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away’ [2 Timothy 3:5]. I trust that's clear.

There is much more on Coleridge at my other, Coleridgean blog.

Monday, 16 September 2013

Another William Howard note

From Robert W. Kenny, 'Parliamentary Influence of Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham, 1536-1624' [The Journal of Modern History 39:3 (1967), 215-232]:
What finally emerges from biographical data is something less than a "Howard party" in the commons, but still a group of some significance as loyal followers of crown policy. In 1586, the first parliament after Howard became one of the great officers of state, the only member with close ties to the lord admiral was his brother, sitting for Reigate. Other connections were peripheral: Thomas Knyvet and George Lewis were cousins but perhaps! not dependents; William More was as much a colleague as a follower. And the identification of John Young remains a little uncertain. Just after the Armada, the lord admiral's prestige was higher and his parliamentary position somewhat stronger- William Howard, More, Knyvet, Young, and another Lewis, but, in addition, Julius Caesar and the two Levesons. The size of the "following" declined somewhat in 1593. Howard had full control over Bletchingley and Reigate, sending William Howard, John Trevor, Julius Caesar, and Stephen Riddlesden; but there was scarcely anybody else that might be included except for William More, once again knight for Surrey.

In 1597 Howard's strength had improved. There were still members of possible or peripheral connection, Young at Shoreham and Nicholas Hawkins at Cardiff, and a rather larger number of dependable votes. There was one Howard representing Surrey and another Reigate, two Trevors representing Bletchingley, Julius Caesar at Windsor, and Sir Robert Southwell at Guildford. It was in 1601 that Nottingham's influence in commons seems to have reached its peak. Two Howard sons were county members for Surrey and Sussex, and a nephew sat for Reigate. There were two Trevors, at Reigate and Tregony, Caesars at Windsor and Appleby, Robert Mansell at King's Lynn and Wil liam Monson at Malmesbury. Then William, the Lewis with the closest ties to the Gamages, was returned for Cardiff and Thomas Knyvet had his customary seat at Westminster. So in 1601 the lord admiral would have had at least nine, and perhaps eleven, members in his interest, even if the electors at Bletchingley had rebelled. The 1601 parliament was the time of Nottingham's greatest political power, when Essex had been destroyed and he and Cecil were without rivals as holders of the: queen's confidence; it is not surprising, then, that the electoral appeal of his followers might be greater. [229-30]
1601 and immediately afterwards, then, would have been a good time to start sucking up to the Howards; perhaps by dedicating collections of honeyed sonnets to the eldest son. (Kenny's argument in this paper is that Nottingham, though 'a man whose name is familiar to the schoolboy but whose personality and consequence have remained-perhaps deservedly-obscure'; on account of the 'shortage' of documents relating to him. [215])


No comments:

Post a Comment