Daisy Cho 1
Daisy Cho
Eng. 149
Prof. Harris
4/9/08
Poetry Explication Revised: Self-Knowledge by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Self-Knowledge
- E coelo descendit γνωθι σεαυτόν. – Juvenal, xi.27.
γνωθι σεαυτόν! - and is this the prime
And heaven-sprung adage of the olden time! -
Say, canst thou make thyself? - Learn first that trade; -
Haply thou mayst know what thyself had made.
What hast thou, Man, that thou dar'st call thine own? -
What is there in thee, Man, that can be known? -
Dark fluxion, all unfixable by thought,
A phantom dim of past and future wrought,
Vain sister of the worm, - life, death, soul; clod -
Ignore thyself, and strive to know thy God!
-S.T. Coleridge (1834, comp. 1832)
Coleridge’s “Self-Knowledge” dramatizes the evolution of the speaker’s opinion about self-knowledge from a Classical standpoint to a Christian interpretation. Self-knowledge under the tutelage of Classical philosophy suggests a man-oriented view of the universe, whereas the later-developed Christian theology proposes a God-oriented reading; these two outlooks naturally conflict with one another, a sentiment shared by the speaker who finally comes to reject the Classical position on self-knowledge in favor of the Christian portrayal. The poem is fundamentally a compressed account of the clashes between old and new ideologies, between elegant and rough languages, and between establishment and defiance, all of which are supported by the intentional disharmony on literal and figurative levels. Moreover, in terms of a historical compartmentalization of literary styles, the poem’s inherent sense of conflict showcases the rebellious spirit that is the hallmark of Romanticism, and defies the conservative authority on not just the philosophy of self-knowledge but also the traditional use of poetic devices like meter, image, structure and rhyme scheme.
The poem immediately revolts against the conventional use of meter by infusing irregularity; there’s not one line that completely follows the rules of dactylic tetrameter, to which the poem subscribes on the whole. In addition, the usually lyrical meter is constantly broken up by the intrusive appearances of monosyllabic, stressed words like “Man” (5, 6), “life, death, soul; clod” (9). The rhythm, or more aptly, the disruption of rhythm, further contributes to the irregularity. The interrupting declarations and excessive punctuations within the lines force a slow, awkward navigation through the flow of the words. For example, the direct commandment from the speaker to the audience to obtain self-knowledge - “Know Thyself!” (1), is intentionally set up in Greek and punctuated by an exclamation mark. As a result, the reader has to halt right after the very first two words of the poem, immediately arresting the flow. Conversely, the heavy use of dashes in between the lines urges a breathless quality; it signifies the speaker’s almost feverish changes in thoughts, thus amplifying the sense of conflict, frustration and confusion. The ten-line poem belongs to the family of lyric poetry, which highlights poetic imagination and creativity. As one of the Big Six in Romantic poetry, Coleridge constant challenges the conventional poetic forms, and the freedom of form in lyric poetry grants him the perfect medium to paint both emotive and philosophical output.
The opening adage situates the poem in the major strife between two belief systems – one of Classical philosophy and the other of Christian ideology. The poet’s choice to present the epitaph in its original Greek helps draw a Classical image right from the beginning; moreover, the subtitle directly cites the Roman philosopher Juvenal, who lends his Classical credential to the ensuing battle of ideologies. More word-painting further establishes the two ideological opponents presented in this poem: another Classical example include the words “prime” (1) in the sense of “the first,”“adage” (2) and “olden time” (2) which paint a picture of Antiquity. The Christian ideology, on the other hand, is represented by several Christian images including the “worm” (9), which is a name of Satan in Paradise Lost: “O Eve, in evil hour thou didst give eare To that false Worm” (P.L. IX. 1068); the “clod” (9) which alludes to men in the Creation myth; and the address to a singular God in line 10. Between the pillars of Classical images and the Christian representations, the speaker completes an internal journey of conflict, rejecting his own command to consider the Classical teaching of self-knowledge and finally converting to the Christian precept of submitting to God in the conclusion.
The two equally important but differing schools of thinking – Classical and Christian – can be further supported by the structural symmetry of the poem. Dividing the poem into two equal halves: lines 1-5 and lines 6-10, one sees the mirror image of command (1) – question (5), and question (6) – command (10). Also, the two injunctions (1, 10) directly contradict each other in placement and in meaning: first to know thyself and last to ignore thyself. This miniaturizes the problem and resolution that is the backbone of the entire poem: the problem being the challenge to obtain self-knowledge and the resolution being the decision to cease the pursuit of self-knowledge. In addition, the structural treatment of key words complements the ongoing struggle within the speaker whose voice alternates between authority and uncertainty. The inner lines of the poem contrast the authoritarian commands of the first and the last lines. First, a series of three questions are posed to undermine the first injunction of know thyself, creating substantial doubts in the mind of the reader by line 6. Further, the image of uncertainty is supplied in lines 7 and 8 with words like “fluxion,”“unfixable,”“phantom,” which share the feeling of mercurialness. The first part of line 9 features an admonition: “Vain sister of the worm;” the second part a monosyllabic quartet–“life, death, soul; clod” which leads to the final directive ignore thyself (10), which by this juncture has gained enough force of language through the crescendo of the preceding four words to powerfully reject the proposition know thyself in line 1. This polarized structure is also maintained on a microscopic scale; for instance, “clod” at the end of line 9 stands as the direct opposite to “God” at the end of line 10. The structural opposition highlights the dissonance between the men-oriented and the God-oriented views of philosophy.
The rhyme scheme continues the contrasting feeling. The five sets of perfect rhyming couplets begin with a hard rhyme of “prime” (1) and “time” (2), and moves away to softer rhymes of “trade and made” (3,4), “own and known” (5,6) and “thought and wrought” (7,8). The circle is complete with the re-entry of “clod and God” (9,10), also a hard rhyme. What is more, the rebellious impulse of the speaker is manifested by the auditory coarseness of language in certain parts of the poem. Lines 1-6 and 9-10consist mostly of one-syllable words, resulting in a choppy sound effect that brings out the lecturing aspect of the passage. In particular, words of command like the capitalized and stressed “Say” and “Learn” in line 2 demand the reader’s attention by their staccato and accented articulation. On the contrary, lines 7 and 8 use a more elevated language that features longer syllables, softer consonants, and flow is less urged or truncated - there in no in-line punctuation or between-the-line dashes. But the mood abruptly switches again in lines 9 and 10, with many hissing consonants in “sister” (9) and “strive” (10), as well as the return of mostly monosyllabic words. The recapitulation of a rougher language after a more elegant reprieve suggests that the logical conclusion entails an emotional price. The speaker does not reconcile the feeling of conflict even as he intellectually arrives at the antithesis of the opening proposition. The emotional struggle goes on.
Works Cited
Coleridge, S.T. “Self-Knowledge.” British Literature 1780 to 1830. Mellor, Anne Kostelanetz, and Richard E. Matlak. Australia: Heinle & Heinle, 1996. 765
Coleridge, S.T.. “Letter to William Godwin.” British Literature 1780 to 1830. Mellor, Anne Kostelanetz, and Richard E. Matlak. Australia: Heinle & Heinle, 1996. 711
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Merritt Yerkes Hughes. New York: Odyssey Press, 1935. 307