The Poet as Imaginative Genius

Reflective Commentary (2025)

This essay marks a foundational moment in my scholarly engagement with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of art and aesthetics. The primary aim was to unravel Kant’s conceptual framework concerning fine art. Attention centred on his elevation of poetry and the notion of the imaginative genius. The essay reflects a careful effort to summarise and clarify Kant’s principal propositions, providing clear exposition rather than probing deeper tensions or alternate interpretations.

With the benefit of ten years of research, teaching, and critical dialogue within the humanities, my approach has become significantly more nuanced. I now appreciate that Kant’s arguments belong to the tradition of philosophical aesthetics. However, a much broader view is that his work contributes to an ongoing conversation about creativity, culture, and the formation of artistic value. Whereas my earlier essay aimed to present Kant’s ideas with fidelity, my current thinking acknowledges the complexities and contradictions within his work. The categories he draws between nature and art, genius and talent, form and content, invite further scrutiny when examined from the perspective of different philosophical traditions and historical circumstances.

I remain interested in Kant’s idea of the poetic genius, although I now temper this fascination with greater awareness of the cultural and social forces involved in recognising and celebrating creativity. The very question of what constitutes genius, or why poetry should hold a privileged place, demands attention on philosophical reasoning as well as the wider context of cultural transmission and legacy. I am increasingly mindful of how the ideals of classical aesthetics are continually reinterpreted by subsequent generations, each shaped by its own intellectual, theological, and social concerns.

In sharing this essay now, I do so not as a final word, but rather as a marker of intellectual development and an invitation to dialogue. The journey from comprehension to critique is central to academic life. My hope is that this piece may encourage others to approach classic texts with respect for their historical significance and a readiness to question, adapt, and reconsider their place in contemporary thought.

If these reflections prompt discussion, new critiques, or the perspectives of others, I would welcome the opportunity to continue the conversation. My commitment remains to pursue the study of literature, aesthetics, and the humanities as a living, evolving engagement with the traditions that have shaped them.

Having reflected on these questions and the path of my own scholarly development, I now invite you to read the essay as it was originally written for doctoral study in 2015. The following analysis presents my early approach to Kant’s philosophy of art and represents an initial step in what has become a continuing intellectual journey.

The Poet as Imaginative Genius (2015)

Immanuel Kant defines fine art as “a mode of representation which is intrinsically purposive, and which, although devoid of an end, has the effect of advancing the culture of the mental powers in the interest of social communication.”[1]  By examining his definition we gain a clearer insight into the genius of Kant’s creation. 

Fine art is a conduit of expression (“a mode of representation”).  Mode of representation is a vehicle for the portrayal of art.  Art interpreted as a specific form (“fine”) in which function (“art”) resides.  With this definition Kant begins to place art in context.  We are not here considering art generally but fine art specifically.  Fine art is a method of communication.  Fine art is a pathway for portrayal of a person, persona, or topic originating in the mind of the author.  Later, Kant refers to this imaginative author as genius.  In this essay I argue for the poetic as the highest form of fine art and the poet as the master of that form.

Fine art possesses innate purpose (“which is intrinsically purposive”).  Intrinsic purpose is the essence of fine art.  Fine art is born through the mind of genius in the form of creative expression.  That which is intrinsic is woven into the fabric of an idea.  Think of an ornate tapestry in which artwork is fashioned by warp and woof making up the fabric.  Warp is the thread drawn lengthwise through the transverse woof thread to create cloth.   Intrinsic purpose is to art what thread is to tapestry.  Intrinsically purposive reflection is the essential nature of fine art.

Fine art is “devoid of an end.”  Thus, fine art is entirely lacking in practical function.  Art is an aesthetic experience.  Here art is limited to artistic or aesthetic purpose.  Fine art must be discerned to be art and not nature.  Art being that which is born of the mind of man as imaginative genius.  Nature being that which is not born of the mind of man thus it cannot possess imaginative genius.  Notwithstanding the finality in its form, fine art must have the appearance of being free from the restriction of groundless rules as if it were a product of ordinary nature.  Accordingly the end product of fine art, deliberate though it be, must not have the appearance of being purposeful; i.e., fine art must be clothed with the robe of nature, although recognized to be art.  To be “clothed with the robe of nature” is to be shrouded with the beauty of nature yet to be a fine art.  The tension between art, nature and imaginative genius remains for those who philosophically do not embrace a Christian theology.  To argue that only art can possess imaginative genius because only art can be born of the creative man is to ignore the origin of man as rooted in the creative action of God.

If indeed man is an end in himself then there is no argument for God.  If man is the highest form then God cannot be the deity to whom man turns for the spiritual as compared to the temporal.  If creative genius resides only in man then it is a logical conclusion that nature cannot possess imaginative genius.  However, if one concedes that God is the originator of all then the entire foundation shifts to God as the originator of creative genius.  God made the earth and all contained within the earth both nature and man.  If so, then art being robed in nature is a natural occurrence because the imaginative mind instigated all.  Nature itself cannot be the creator of man and nature does possess imaginative genius.

Fine art advances the “culture of the mental powers.”  Kant provides his own commentary as follows:

For the beautiful must not be judged according to concepts, but by the purposive manner in which the imagination is attuned so as to accord with the faculty of concepts generally; and so rule and precept are incapable of serving as the requisite subjective standard for that aesthetic and unconditional purposiveness in fine art which has to make a warranted claim to be bound to please everyone.[2] 

Christopher Dawson wrote of culture, “A social culture is an organized way of life which is based on a common tradition and conditioned by a common environment.”[3] Further, “culture is the form of society.  Society without culture is a formless society….”[4]  He adds, “Our whole social environment seems to us to be filled with forces which really exist only in our own minds.”  The poet is the prophet of society sharing the intricacies of a given milieu.

Kant’s mention of “mental powers” harkens to the essence of existence.  Man exists in the physical.  Man exists in the mind.   The life of the mind is the distinction of man from all else in the ordered world.  The idea of “vivere viventibus est esse, that is, the very being of living things is that such things do live.”[5]  When Aristotle defined the mind as “that power that is capable of knowing all things” he enlisted the knowing capacity of man.[6]  Dorothy Sayers concluded, “For the sole true end of education is simply this: to teach men how to learn for themselves….”[7]

Kant suggests that fine art has the “effect of advancing the culture of the mental powers.”  Fine art is a cultural norm in and of its own right.  There is a culture of the fine arts.  This cultural milieu has the impact of advancing the mind of man (“mental powers”).  Fine art stimulates the mind of man into the imaginative.  A genius creates fine art that is imparted to another who interprets fine art thus advancing the mental powers.  The idea of advancing mental powers is a strong advocate for the life of the mind, even in a classical sense.  Fine art is the apex of all arts existing in the most imaginative place in the mind of man.  Likewise, the poetic mind is the most imaginative reservoir for creative genius.

Fine art is that which is “in the interest of social communication.”  The concept of social has been developed through many years as the sociology of knowledge.  Reality is a social construct.  Sociology of knowledge addresses the processes in which this occurs.  The pertinent terms are “reality” and “knowledge.”  These terms have “a long history of philosophical inquiry.”[8]  Man interfaces with man.  This is social.  This creates culture.  Fine art is in the best interest of the advancing of man in a social context.  The poetic is the vehicle within which to interface with the finest of art drawn from a given society.

Fine art has multiple agendas (“and which”) converging into imaginative expression of genius.  Fine art is not a one dimensional expression rather includes intrinsic purpose, lacks end, advances the culture of mental powers, and is in the interest of social communication.

Kant begins by saying, “There is no science of the beautiful, but only a critique. Nor, again, is there such a thing as beautiful science, but only beautiful art.”[9]  This simple yet insightful approach succinctly packages the fundamental idea proposed by Kant.  Neither science of the beautiful nor beautiful science exists as science requires “reasons and proofs.”[10] Science fails “to be a judgement of taste.”[11]  To define the study of the beautiful as a scientific (“science of the beautiful”) endeavor is a contradiction especially by the standards established by Kant.  To define science as beautiful (“beautiful science”) is to impose on science (a proof oriented discipline) a definition from a non-proof based idea (beauty).  

Fine art in the “fulness of its perfection” requires a “large store of knowledge” of language, literature, history, and classical learning.  These “historical sciences in turn “form the necessary preparation and groundwork for fine art….”[12]  Seeing the beautiful as beautiful is not founded in rudimentary scientific reasoning since there are no arbitrary rules forming the beautiful.  Seeing the beautiful as beautiful is best observed in the fine art of poetic expression.

Fine art is “free from the restraint of arbitrary rules.”[13]  The product of fine art must be “recognized to be art and not nature.”[14]  Kant, in theory, argues that art is the product of imagination while nature is not a result of man’s imagination.  Nature is of the creative expression of God as is man.  Thus, the two converge at the source.  The universal idea of art that is recognized to be “beautiful which pleases in the mere judgement of it…” rather than mechanical art where judgement is based upon a sensation or concept.

To define “fine art” Kant introduces the idea of genius.  The genius of fine art is an innate talent or natural endowment.  He concludes, “Genius is the innate mental aptitude (ingenium) through which nature gives the rule to art.”[15]  When a poet owes his work to genius “he does not know how the ideas for it have entered into his head, nor has he it in his power to invent the like at pleasure, or methodically, and communicate the same to others in such precepts as would enable them to produce similar products.”[16]  Poetic genius is imaginative genius.  He does not know how the ideas have entered into his head.  He does not have the power to invent the like form at pleasure.  He is a poet.  He is an artist.  He is an artist for poetry is the pinnacle of fine art.

Kant concludes that “everyone is agreed on the point of the complete opposition between genius and the spirit of imitation.  The spirit of genius wells up from the deep springs of the artist’s mind whether the composer’s notes, the painter’s brush, or the poet’s lyrics.  Whereas the spirit of imitation has no home in the mind of the imaginative genius.   The two are mutually exclusive.  “Now since learning is nothing but imitation, the greatest ability, or aptness as a pupil (capacity, is still, as such, not equivalent to genius).”[17]  The genius of the poet is neither learned nor is the idea transferred from one poet to another.  Even if a poet studied the greatest minds available for imitation this act cannot make him a poetic genius.  “For what is accomplished in this way is something that could have been learned.”[18]  Accordingly, all that Newton “set forth in his immortal work” can be learned.[19]  One cannot learn imaginative genius.  One cannot learn to be a poet in the truest sense.  Kant opines:

The reason is that all the steps that Newton had to take from the first elements of geometry to his greatest and most profound discoveries were such as he could make intuitively evident and plain to follow, not only for himself but for everyone else.[20]

However, when considering Homer one can “show how his ideas, so rich at once in fantasy and in thought, enter and assemble themselves in his brain, for the good reason that he does not himself know, and so cannot teach others.”[21]  Homer is a poet who embodies the highest idea of imaginative genius.

Of the imaginative art Kant concludes, “Genius can do no more than furnish rich material for products of fine art; its elaboration and its form require a talent academically trained, so that it may be employed in such a way as to stand the test of judgement.”  Kant states, “For judging beautiful objects, as such, what is required is taste; but for fine art, i.e., the production of such objects, one needs genius.”[22]  Of the beautiful he concludes, “A beauty of nature is a beautiful thing; beauty of art is a beautiful representation of a thing.”[23]

Aesthetic qualities require a perception for and a refined judgment in good taste.  This quality separates fine art from the more popular art of modern society.  This definition continues to evolve as society presses on toward a postmodern era dominated by secular age thought.  Fine in this context is not a judgment of the quality of the artwork rather the assertions of a university discipline especially in the Western world.  Fine art is not of scientific origin rather is of the imaginative mind of the genius.  Thus, fine art created has no arbitrary rules except that the art must come from the mind of the genius.

The division of fine arts include “the art of speech, formative art, and the art of the play sensations (as external sense impressions).”[24]  The threshold question for inclusion or exclusion relates to the position of the genius in the equation.  If genius is the originator of the art then fine arts includes this art.  If genius is not the originator then the art is excluded from fine arts.

Fine art is solely oriented within imaginative genius that leads to the strengthening of the individual and collective mind of society.  Fine art is not defined by arbitrary rules as other forms of art.  Art defined by arbitrary rules may have many definable functions not associated with the fine arts. The comparison of Newton (scientific) and Homer (imaginative) delineates that which is organized by reason and proof as compared to the imaginative.

In Preface to Lyrical Ballads Wordsworth published his writing experiment “fitting to metrical arrangement a selection of the real language of men in a state of vivid sensation” to ascertain the pleasure that “a poet may rationally endeavor to impart.”[25] He notes that “metrical language” holds forth symbols that have “very different expectations” depending on the “era of literature.”[26]  Of poetry he explains that the public outcry is “against the triviality and meanness both of thought and language, which some of my contemporaries have occasionally introduced to their metrical compositions....”[27] 

Wordsworth’s writing experiment sheds light on the idea of the poet as a man speaking to man.  He argues that the poet brings great pleasure to the reader, foregoes formality to unearth the habits of man, aligns real life situations with real language used by real men, presents ideas to the mind of man in an unusual and imaginative way, highlights through poetry the laws of nature, writes in a context that opens the passion of the heart, writes from the overflow of feelings, creates with purpose and has a unique perception of beauty.  The centrality of the “word” in poetry is tantamount to the poet as crafter of words.   The poet possesses a greatly heightened intellectual and spiritual capacity.  The poet, then, is the highest form of man bringing the most simple and divine to man.

Heidegger proposes that language exposes man in his existence.  A word “often looks in its simplicity like an unessential one” but is, in fact, essential.[28]  Language is not simply a tool “rather it is that event which disposes of the supreme possibility of human existence.”[29]  We are a conversation--to speak and to hear.  Conversation is the “essential actualisation of language.”[30]  Every word matters.  Words are the building blocks of thought.  Their unique construction and combination invent a thought.  Words emerge as a sentence.  A sentence becomes a paragraph.  A paragraph becomes a chapter.  But the genesis of thought is a word.  

There is no unessential word in effective conversation.  The teaching of Jesus has provided the foundation for my understanding of words when he said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak….”[31]  Jesus urges man to consider the power of words even as an instrument of eternity.  Words are not to be entered into through frivolity.  The word made flesh encourages man to give careful consideration in the choice of effective, well-chosen words.[32]  These words become flesh.  The transference of a thought to the written or audible declaration is the act of word becoming flesh. 

In a sense, the gift of words is one of the greatest gifts one human can provide to another.  Hence, the poet is the giver of words.  As such, the poet being the master wordsmith is the master of ideas, concepts, and thoughts.  I don’t intend redundancy in the statement of the three- ideas, concepts, and thoughts.   The intentional repetition is to illustrate the thought behind the words.  The intent is to illustrate that a choice must be made by the author to determine the precise word to engage in context thus creating the sentence.  Is it more appropriate to state that the poet is master of an idea, the master of concept, or the master of thought?  Even the addition of the word “an” in the previous question changes the dynamic of the suggested intent moving the discussion from a plurality of ideas, concepts, and thoughts to a singular idea, concept and thought. 

The value of a “word” is not only to serve as a conduit for conversation but is a pragmatic matter of principled living.  Heidegger states well the importance of words.  Words are essential.  Every one of them.  Words are that juncture when human existence transacts.  Conversation is the engaging of language, or words.  The poet is the master exegete of word use engaged to communicate a well-chosen thought and its meaning.

Coleridge states that “Shakespeare appears, from his poems alone, apart from his great works, to have possessed all the conditions of a true poet...”[33]  This conclusion “by this proof [is]  to do away with, as far as may [be] in my power, the popular notion that he was a great dramatist….”[34]  This is interesting as Shakespeare is most often considered the great dramatist.  However, Coleridge opines that Shakespeare is better noted as having the markings of a true poet.  Which is to be preferred?  The designation of being a great dramatist or a true poet?  Coleridge positions the true poet above the great dramatist.  But why?

Coleridge continues, “Nature, the prime genial artist, inexhaustible in diverse powers, is equally inexhaustible in forms.”[35]  Nature is the primary artist.  Nature is the true poet.  Nature is the author of the lyric.  The essence of the poem is founded in the unveiling of the work of the prime genial artist.   In a sense, nature is the essence of the poetic mind.  Thus, for Coleridge to eloquently elevate Shakespeare to a post possessing the conditions of a true poet he diminishes the idea of his being a great dramatist.  He is acknowledging the mind of Shakespeare as being at one with the conditions of the true poet.  He does not state that Shakespeare is a true poet rather that he has possession of the conditions of a true poet.  Shakespeare produced works that have lived on through generations of readers.  The greatness is not in his being a dramatist only.  The greatness of Shakespeare is in his embodiment of the conditions of a true poet.  With Shakespeare one experiences the sublime essence of the prime genial artist through his inexhaustible divine powers and forms.

Sidney invokes the authority of Scripture as evidence of the value of poetry.  He scales the heights toward the intellectual apex of the psalmist calling David’s work “a divine poem.”  His testimony regards the “great learned men, both ancient and modern.”[36]  He argues for David’s psalms as poems divine.  He then invokes the prophetic utterance of Scripture as being “merely poetical.”[37]  With a twist of rhetoric he facetiously wonders as to whether or not he is profaning the name of God by this argumentation.  He says, “But truly now having named him, I fear me I seem to profane that holy name, applying it to poetry, which is among us thrown down to so ridiculous an estimation.”[38]  Sidney concludes that those who look a little deeper will conclude regarding the value of poetry that poetry “deserveth not to be scourged out of the church of God.”[39]

Wordsworth’s poet is the ideal thinker.  He ponders,

What is a poet?  To whom does he address himself?  And what language is to be expected from him?  He is a man speaking to men: a man, it is true, endued with more lively sensibility, more enthusiasm and tenderness, who has a greater knowledge of human nature, and a more comprehensive soul, than are supposed to be common among mankind; a man pleased with his own passions and volitions, and who rejoices more than other men in the spirit of life that is in him; delighting to contemplate similar volitions and passions as manifested in the goings-on of the universe, and habitually impelled to create them where he does not find them.  To these qualities he has added a disposition to be affected more than other men by absent things as if they were present; an ability of conjuring up in himself passions, which are indeed far from being the same as those produced by real events….[40]

 In defining the word “poet” Wordsworth describes what see as a true a Renaissance man.  Wordsworth attributes to Aristotle as having said “that poetry is the most philosophic of all writing.”[41]  This reflects more of a Wordsworthian idea than an Aristotelian idea.  Wordsworth holds the poetic in highest esteem.  Here he adds to his premise that poetry is the mont blanc of all writing.

To conceive of poetry as “the image of man and nature” is to elevate poetry to that which is central to man’s existence.[42] Wordsworth states that “Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge; it is the impassioned expression which is in the countenance of all science.”[43]  Is poetry philosophical?  Is it possible for a work to be philosophical when it is independent of the author?  Both the author and the work are philosophical.  Much like logos.  Logos as spirit became flesh in the form of man.  An idea in the mind of the author becomes flesh in the form of the written word.  Thus, the author and the work vary in form yet both are philosophical.

Wordsworth believes his poems will have a certain probable effect upon his readers.  That effect is great pleasure delivered to the reader. Prior to the release of these poems he was certain there would be those who would have a “more than common pleasure” or a “more than common dislike” for the poems.[44]  There would be little in between.  In this preface he is happy to announce that “...I have pleased a greater number, than I ventured to hope I should please.”[45]  For Wordsworth the estimate of worth is the pleasure gained by the reader.  I do not agree with his conclusion regarding his success.  Pleasure is a subjective idea.  Wordsworth wants his reader to experience pleasure from his work as do all authors who seek acceptance by a readership.  I am appreciative that Wordsworth included this window into his mind revealing confidence in his work and desire to please his readers.  However, this is one of the weakest points in his armour relating to the conditions of the true poet.  I cannot image Coleridge stating that one of the conditions of the true poet is that he feel good about himself and make subjective comments about the fact that he pleases his audience.  Is the essence of the true poet that he is a crowd pleaser? 

In Wordsworth’s own estimation he concludes that he has succeeded in this realm.  But who is to judge this of his work?  Is it the poet’s work to judge the worthiness of his own work?  In an era when data analytics did not exist there was no human way other than book sales, commentary and anecdotal conclusions to determine whether or not the readership was pleased or displeased with the poems that had been made available for public consumption.  His conclusion is at best a guess and, at worst, an ego driven desire for acceptance.  I disagree with his conclusion since he lacks scientific validation and verifiable data to draw the conclusion.  In the end, he may have been correct as his work has withstood the erosion of time.  Even today, he brings pleasure to the reader and this work remains a literary masterpiece.  Obviously, he has accomplished the goal throughout the passage of time but his early conclusion was simply a guess. 

The poet foregoes formality to unearth the habits of man.  Wordsworth concludes that the general populace sees poetry as good if the poetry uses verse that is known to the reader.   He writes, “It is supposed, that by the act of writing in verse an author makes a formal engagement that he will gratify certain known habits of association….”[46]  He takes exception to this idea.  He embraces a view of poetry far beyond the formulaic, poetic expression to that of including prose as verse.  I, hesitantly, agree but am compelled to do so based on the overall view he has of the poet.[47]  There are a good many readers of poetry that have not been educated in the proper structure of verse.  However, if Wordsworth is simply stating that the common or familiar verse causes one to appreciate poetry then I am more aligned with his thought.  Indeed, he is saying that this is commonly the way it works, but he is here declaring his opposition to this tendency.  An anecdotal example is that of music.  When I hear a familiar tune that happens to be one that I enjoy my interaction with the song is different than if I hear a tune for the first time or with a sound that is foreign to my ear.  The more familiar one is with the musical lyrics and tune the more likely is the engagement for a pleasurable experience.  The same can be said to be true of the poetic experience.

Wordsworth provides “a systematic defence of the theory, upon which poems are written.”[48]  First, an author makes a “formal engagement” in the “act of writing in verse.”[49]  He chooses to select language that is “really used by men.”[50]  He casts “over them a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual way.”[51]  Further, he speaks of the obligation to write with purpose.[52] This formula is a step toward the separation of the author from the text.  As a formal engagement the text is established as a work in its own right.  The use of imaginative writing presented in an unusual manner colours the autonomous ideas of the work separate from the author.  Wordsworth is a reminder of the idea of purpose in writing painted by the imagination and embraced by obligation.

Brooks argues that “Man’s experience is indeed a seamless garment, no part of which can be separated from the rest.”[53]  He concludes that much criticism is designed to cutting the poem or novel “loose from its author and from his life as a man, with his own particular hopes, fears, interests, conflicts, etc.”[54]  Because “Wordsworth’s poet was a man speaking to men” his interpretation is that man and his poetry are one whereas the severing of poetry from the man “may seem drastic and therefore disastrous.[55] At times criticism is intent upon severing the poem or novel “from those who actually read” but “literature is written to be read.”[56]  Whether within or independent of the man poetry is for consumption by man.  Brooks discusses “modern poetic technique” defined as “the rediscovery of metaphor and the full commitment to metaphor.”[57]  He states, “the poem is like a little drama.”[58] 

The poet aligns real life situations with real language used by real men.  Not all poets focus their writing where Wordsworth placed his focus.  He says, “The principal object, then, which I proposed to myself in these poems was to choose incidents and situations from common life and to relate or describe them, throughout, as far as was possible, in a selection of language really used by men…”[59]  While this may be a focus of Wordsworth this is not of necessity required of all poets.  This is Wordsworth’s own view of poetry among many views of the poetic.  I do not agree with Wordsworth.  To impose his paradigm on all poets is presumptuous.  Given his discussion of “What is a poet?” I am inclined to think he considers his methodology as the orthodox model.  This really is not uncommon among great thinkers.  Freud viewed the world through the illusion of father and mother complexities.  Marx saw the world as having ascended from earth to heaven and driven by capital agendas amid class warfare.  Wordsworth may be inferring that his paradigm is the model.

The literature of realism demonstrates both concrete and abstract potentiality.  Abstract potentiality remains in the realm of the subjective.  This is the idea that has not come to fruition.  It remains a thought.  This thought may ruminate for years before being acknowledged in concrete potentiality.  This is the phase of thought given to the seasoning of an idea.  The idea born in the mind may remain there for quite sometime until it is either ready to emerge or be dismissed.  This idea resides in the mind seasoning as imaginative genius. 

Lukacs holds that concrete potentiality is “the dialectic between the individual’s subjectivity and objective reality.”[60]  As an idea germinates it may transition into a place in which it now becomes objective reality.  It may be a worthy idea made concrete.  It may be an unworthy idea made concrete.  In one sense this is not a discussion of moral value.  It is a discussion of decision to act.  Once enacted the subjective idea made concrete may surprise the man who sees a variation in ideas about his own character based upon the choice to act in a certain manner incongruent with his subjective thinking process.  The poet’s mind engages the subjective to create the objective.

The poet uses imagination to present ideas to the mind of man in an unusual way.  Wordsworth sees the world through an imaginative lens that others may not be privy to as they view the world.[61] This mind often appears in the modern corporate environment in which those who are the “corporate poets” do not see the world the same as all others. The world just looks different to the poet whether in the time of Wordsworth or in the modern corporation.  The key idea is imagination.  I agree with Wordsworth on his assessment of “a certain colouring of imagination” that causes “ordinary things” to be presented to the mind in a different way.  This is one of the most profound ideas in this selected reading as it is not bound by time but applies to all mankind at all times in history.

Keats begins with the “authenticity of Imagination.”[62]  He is certain of “the holiness of the Heart’s affections and the truth of Imagination.”[63]  Imagination translated into Beauty is truth.  Imagination forms ideas.  Ideas are essential to beauty.  Admittedly, Keats concludes that he has “never yet been able to perceive how anything can be known for truth by consequitive reasoning….”[64]  Beauty is not simply a logical mechanism of reasoning.  Keats beautifully sums his thought in saying, “the simple imaginative Mind may have its rewards in the repetition of its own silent Working coming continuously on the spirit with a fine suddenness….”[65]  This is “a Man of Achievement.”[66] The poet as such is a Man of Achievement.

According to Shelley, “Poetry… may be defined as ‘the expression of the Imagination’: and poetry is connate with the origin of man.”[67]  Language is poetry.  The poet apprehends that which is true and beautiful.  Poets imagine the “indestructible order.”[68]  Poets initiate laws, establish secular society, and create arts.  Poets “participate in the eternal.”[69]   He opines, “Plato was essentially a poet- the truth and imagery and the melody of his language is the most intense that it is possible to conceive.”[70]  He concludes that both Plato and Lord Bacon are poets but Cicero had less success as a poet.  Plato and Lord Bacon were owners of imaginative genius.

The poet is one who sees how all is connected through an inborn sense of the primary laws of nature.  It is the imagination of the poet that allows him to see the world at its most fundamental.  The poet writes from the overflow of all that is in his heart and mind to create the poetic expression.  He writes much like the Hebrew prophet spoke.  That is, from the overflow.  If Wordsworth does allow Kant’s idea of imaginative genius then he allows the creative energies found in the fine arts to be at the center of gravity for the poet as artist.

Aristotle shares that the “poet writes about things as they might possibly occur.”[71]  Thus, the poet is not simply an imitator of the authentic but an interpreter of the subject.[72]  In essence, the imitator like “a painter or any maker of likenesses...must imitate things that were in the past, or are now, or that people say and think to be or those things that ought to be.”[73]

The poet writes in a context that opens the passion of the heart.   Wordsworth suggests, “Low and rustic life was generally chosen, because in that condition, the essential passions of the heart find a better soil in which they can attain their maturity, are less under restraint, and speak a plainer and more emphatic language….”[74]  Here he suggests two ideas:  passion and simplicity.  It is in the more banal aspects of daily life that one finds the truth of his own foundation. Wordsworth’s choice of a “low and rustic life” is passion of the heart at its finest. 

Shelley writes, “All the authors of revolutions in opinion are not only necessarily poets as they are inventors….”[75]  Keats says in his “Letter to George and Thomas Keats,” “The excellency of every Art is its intensity, capable of making all disagreeables evaporate, from their being in close relationship with Beauty & Truth.”[76]

The poet writes from the overflow of feelings.  Wordsworth casts a critical look at his own right to be called poet. He asserts,

If in this opinion I am mistaken, I can have little right to the name of a poet.  For all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings:  but though this be true, poems to which any value can be attached, were never produced on any variety of subjects but by a man, who being possessed of more than usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and deeply.[77]

 Eliot comments, “The poet’s mind is in fact a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, images, which remain there until all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together.”[78]Given that this is Wordsworth’s own analyses of self one wonders if he really questioned this of his writing.  I am inclined to conclude that Wordsworth had no hint of shyness or self doubt.  It appears that he made this statement knowing full well in his own mind how he fared on the question.  He is the one who was happy at the pleasure his readers gained from his work.  

Assuming Wordsworth experienced this overflow he writes,

I have said that poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings:  it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility:  the emotion is contemplated till by a species of reaction the tranquility gradually disappears, and an emotion, kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind.

 One simply cannot force an idea to emerge.  The idea is born of much that cannot be described.  Wordsworth speaks of that “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” which aptly describes the creative urge.  This spontaneous overflow is the birth of an idea from imaginative genius.

The poet creates with purpose.  Wordsworth makes an apparent innocent comment when he says, “I have said that each of these poems has a purpose.”[79]  On the surface this appears to be so elementary that one could easily pass over the idea.  Yet, Wordsworth begins with purpose.  Where does that purpose reside?  Is it magically appearing within the poem?  I don’t think so.  It resides in the depth of the poet’s mind.  The poem is the birth of an idea beginning in the recesses of the mind in contemplation.  When tranquility departs emotion erupts.  I agree with Wordsworth on this matter.

The poet is one who has a perception of beauty.  There is much beauty in the world.  Wordsworth might argue that the poet has an enlightened view of beauty that is expressed in the poetic.  He writes,

For the human mind is capable of being excited without the application of gross and violent stimulants; and he must have a very faint perception of its beauty and dignity who does not know this, and who does not further know, that one being is elevated above another, in proportion as he possesses this capability.[80]

 The poet has this elevated capability which includes his elevated sense of knowing.  I agree with Wordsworth on this matter if we assume that the poet is the imaginative genius.  This matter of beauty is one of the most illuminating ideas in Wordsworth and all of the authors we have read this semester.   Wordsworth argues that the poet has a unique perception of that which is beautiful.  Wordsworth esteems the poet as keeper of the priesthood of all things poetic including beauty.  Beauty is born of the imaginative genius.

Arnold concludes that mankind will be required to discover “that we have to turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us.”[81]  Poetry is “the idea of everything; the rest is a world of illusion, of divine illusion.”[82]  He applauds Aristotle’s “profound observation that the superiority of poetry over history consists in its possessing a higher truth and a higher seriousness” while adding that “the superior character of truth and seriousness, in the matter and substance of the best poetry, is inseparable from the superiority of diction and movement marking its style and manner.”[83]  Arnold’s esteem for poetry moves me to want to study poetry at a deeper level.  I have always perused poetry but I have not had the appreciation that I do now after these studies in this course.

Wordsworth asks, “What is a poet?”  Who is his audience?  What style is expected of him?  The poet is a man who has a message for man.  The poet is a man whose life embraces both sense and sensibility.  He has not only a zest for life but a gentleness.  He is possessed of an even greater knowledge of human nature than his fellow man.  His soul is complete.  He is a man whose self worth and identity is confident in passion and movement.  He brims over with the spirit of life more than other men.  His imagination seeks contemplation.  He is invested in the universe and all that transpires in the world here and beyond. Where he cannot find those imaginative ideas in existence he sets about to create what he imagines.  He seeks that which is not present.  Where passion does not exist it is born from within the poet.  The poet is the highest form of man.  Kant shares the beauty of imaginative genius.  Together the poetic is born of the imaginative genius of the poet.

Footnotes

[1] Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement (Oxford: Oxford World Classics, 2007), 134. Note in particular, section 44 entitled “Fine Arts” (134-135), section 45 entitled “Fine art is an art, so far as it has at the same time the appearance of being nature” (135-136), section 46 entitled “Fine art is the art of genius” (136-137), and section 47 entitled “Elucidation and confirmation of the above explanation of genius” (137-140), 135.

[2] Ibid., 171.

[3] Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013), 35.

[4] Ibid., 36.

[5] James V. Schall, The Life of the Mind: On the Joys and Travails of Thinking, 2 ed. (Wilmington, DE. Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2008), xii.

[6] Ibid., xiii.

[7] Dorothy Sayers, The Lost Tools of Learning and the Mind of the Maker (Paperback) (Oxford, England: Benediction Classics, 2010), 18.

[8] Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge(Garden City: Anchor, 1967), 1.

[9] Kant, 134.

[10] Ibid., 134.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 136.  Kant says, “fine arts must necessarily be regarded as arts of genius.”  Also, “fine art is only possible as a product of genius” (137).

[16] Ibid., 137.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 138.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., 140.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid., 149.

[25] William Wordsworth, “Preface to Lyrical Ballads,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007),  306.

[26] Ibid., 307.

[27] Ibid., 308.

[28] Martin Heidegger, “Holderlin and the Essence of Poetry,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 616.

[29] Ibid., 617.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Matt. 12:26 (ESV)..

[32] I have intentionally chosen the word “in” as opposed to “to.”

[33] Samuel Taylor Coleridge, “Shakespeare’s Judgment Equal to His Genius,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 323.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., 325.

[36] Sir Philip Sidney, “An Apology for Poetry,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 137.

[37] Ibid., 138.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Wordsworth, 311-12.  

[41] Ibid., 312.  Aristotle did not actually make this comment in his work.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid., 313.

[44] Ibid., 306.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid., 307.

[47] Ibid.  “This exponent or symbol held forth by metrical language must in different eras of literature have excited very different expectations….”

[48] Ibid., 307.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid., 308.  “...will be found to carry along with them a purpose.”

[53] Cleanth Brooks, “My Credo: Formalist Criticism,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 798.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Cleanth Brooks, “Irony as a Principle of Structure,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 799.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Wordsworth, 307.

[60] Georg Lukacs, “The Ideology of Modernism,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 1221.

[61] Wordsworth, 307.  He writes the poet has “a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual way” which equates to a lens for a differing view of the world.

[62] John Keats, “Letter to Benjamin Bailey,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 331.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Ibid., 331-32.  “Consequitive” is an unbroken sequence of logic.

[65] Ibid., 332.

[66] Ibid., 333.

[67] Percy Bysshe Shelley, “A Defence of Poetry,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 347.

[68] Ibid., 348.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid., 349.

[71] Aristotle, Poetics, in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 65. Aristotle wrote that the function of the poet is to narrate events as “might occur and have the capability of occurring in accordance with the laws of probability or necessity.”

[72] Here Aristotle holds a differing view of the poet from his mentor, Plato. Plato assumes the poet is an inauthentic mimesis.  Aristotle views the poet as an interpreter of the authentic.

[73] Ibid., 78-79.

[74] Wordsworth, 307.

[75] Shelley, 349.

[76] Keats, 333.

[77] Wordsworth, 308.

[78] T.S. Eliot, “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H. Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 540.

[79] Ibid., 308.

[80] Ibid., 309.

[81] Matthew Arnold, “The Study of Poetry,” in The Critical Tradition, ed. David H.Richter, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford, 2007), 429.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Ibid., 434.

Bibliography

 Aristotle, Poetics.  In The Critical Tradition, edited by David H. Richter, 59-81. 3rd ed. Boston:

Bedford, 2007.

Arnold, Matthew.  “The Study of Poetry.” In The Critical Tradition, edited by David H. Richter,

429-34. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise

in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City: Anchor, 1967.

Brooks, Cleanth.  “My Credo: Formalist Criticism.”  In The Critical Tradition, edited by David

H. Richter, 798-99. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

---.  “Irony as a Principle of Structure.”  In The Critical Tradition, edited by David H. Richter,

799-806. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor.  “Shakespeare’s Judgment Equal to His Genius.” In The Critical

Tradition, edited by David H. Richter, 323-25. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

Dawson, Christopher. Religion and Culture. Washington, D.C.  The Catholic University

of America Press, 2013.

Eliot, T.S.  “Tradition and the Individual Talent.”  In The Critical Tradition, edited by David H.

Richter, 537-41. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

Guyer, Paul. “Kant's Conception of Fine Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52,

no. 3 (1994): 275-86.

Heidegger, Martin.  “Holderin and the Essence of Poetry.”  In The Critical Tradition, edited by

David H. Richter, 614-21. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

 Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgement. Oxford: Oxford World Classics, 2007.

 Keats, John. “Letter to Benjamin Bailey.”  In The Critical Tradition, edited by David H. Richter,

331-32. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

 Lukacs, Georg.  “The Ideology of Modernism,” in The Critical Tradition, edited by David H.

Richter, 1218-32. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

 Sayers, Dorothy. The Lost Tools of Learning and the Mind of the Maker (Paperback).

Oxford, England. Benediction Classics, 2010.

 Schall, James V. The Life of the Mind: On the Joys and Travails of Thinking. 2 ed.

Wilmington, DE. Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2008.

 Shelley, Percy Bysshe. “A Defence of Poetry,” in The Critical Tradition, edited by Davide H.

Richter, 346-63. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

Sidney, Sir Philip.  “An Apology for Poetry,” in The Critical Tradition, edited by David H.

Richter, 135-59. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

Wicks, Robert. “Kant On Fine Art: Artistic Sublimity Shaped by Beauty.” Journal of

Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53, no. 2 (1995): 189-94.

Wordsworth, William. “Preface to Lyrical Ballads.” In The Critical Tradition, edited by David H.

Richter, 306-18. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.