The Corner Stones of Romantic Autobiography: Sympathy, Simplicity, and Authenticity

Kimberley Waterman rMA Thesis Dr. R. Glitz

“And how know they, when from myself they hear of myself, whether I say true; seeing no man knows what is in man, but the spirit of man which is in him?”

– St. Augustine

To create an understanding of attitudes towards autobiography today it is essential to take a look at the notions that play an essential part in the creation of and critique on autobiography today and during the Romantic period. The goal is to gain an understanding of truth in the Romantic era. What were the arguments, what was being said about this newly emerging and increasingly popular genre? It is important to ask how Romantic critics understood the role of truthfulness in autobiography as well as enquire into their opinions on alteration and modification. The essential notions for successful autobiography include language, sympathy, and truthfulness and authenticity. The genre of autobiography as we know it today was emerging during the Romantic era. “It is during the Romantic period that autobiography emerges from the shadows, and effectively rises above the sub or marginally literary […] to establish itself as a literary genre”(3 Stelzig). A discussion of Romantic critical texts concerning the forms of self- writing at the time will reveal the importance placed on truthfulness as well as how these critics were starting to differentiate between biography, a genre they were familiar with, and autobiography, a new genre that appeared to be a form of biography. They were trying to understand this new form, unpack it, and also prescribe its practice. The discussion will reveal how and under which circumstances the Romantic critics believed autobiography was supposed to be written. Simple language use proved to be an essential element for a successful autobiography. The importance of this type of language use can be illuminated by a discussion of William Wordsworth’s The Preface in which he advocates for the use of everyday language in poetry writing to push out the popular but abstruse poetic diction that was frequently employed. In doing so, Wordsworth brought poetry and autobiography closer together. The general acceptance

1 of his theory took some time but now is seen as a pivotal to an understanding of the Romantic era. However, there is still a lack of consensus when it comes to defining autobiography, critcis like De Man question whether it is at all possible to do so. A comparison between the Romantic prescriptive texts and present day critical texts that attempt to define autobiography sheds light on this issue and can help create a better understanding of why the genre of autobiography has been so difficult to properly define and pin down.

1. Essential Truth

In order to establish the role of truthfulness in the conception of autobiography as we know it today, it is most informative to look at critical definitions and critically prescriptive texts from that time. These texts do not directly state a concrete definition of the genre of autobiography. They are not actively defining the genre as critics presently are. Rather, they were prescribing a newly emerging practice. These influential Romantic critics describe what they believed an autobiography should look like, what it should entail, and equally important, what it should not entail. These descriptions of their understanding of what a self-writing text should be, reveals their attitude towards truthfulness, alteration, the proper topics to discuss and, importantly, the correct tone of language to describe it all in. What becomes apparent is that truthfulness was essential in order to create a proper autobiography that would be accepted by critics and readers. However, at the same time alteration was equally important. The two may seem mutually exclusive but in fact had to come together in self-writing in order to maintain the fine and frail line that existed between what one may share of himself and what had to be kept private. John Foster was a minister, essayist, and reviewer who wrote Essays in a Series of Letters to a Friend (1826) in which he dedicated one of the essays to ‘a man’s writing memoirs of himself’. These prescriptive essays present Foster’s opinions on how he believed one could best write autobiographical texts, the necessary elements that need to be contained in a proper autobiography, as well as the problems an autobiographer may face and how to overcome them. Foster describes how he had proposed to some of his friends that they should write down memoirs of their own lives. The goal in doing so would not be to merely list the facts and events of their lives but rather to record their states of mind in order to demonstrate the progress of their respective characters,

2 because “it is in this progress that we acknowledge the chief importance of life to consist”(2). From the start on Foster demonstrates a clear preference for internal personal development and is less concerned with external facts and events. However, that does not mean that the external facts have no place within Foster’s theory on autobiographical texts; in fact they have an essential role to play, a threefold one to be precise. The most important concept that Foster develops in his theory is that of the interior person versus the exterior person. He makes a clear terminological distinction between the progress of a person’s character, the most important aspect of self-writing, according to Foster, and a person’s life events; he calls these, respectively, the interior and the exterior life. The exterior events procure their value because of their influence on the interior person, without this connection, and if external facts and events were to be examined in isolation, their value could not be properly estimated. Therefore, Foster emphasizes that any retrospective self-examination, which arguably is an essential aspect of autobiography, ought to start with an examination of the interior and may move outward from there. When an adequate analyses of the inner man has been made, the autobiographer “may proceed outward, to the course of his actions; of which he will thus have become qualified to form a much juster estimate, than he could by any exercise of judgment upon them regarded merely as exterior facts”(52). As Foster understands it, the progress of a person’s character is what an autobiography ought to contain in order to be considered valuable. External facts and events serve a purpose in the process of self- examination and autobiographical writing, however, “it is that interior character, whether displayed in actions or not, which forms the leading object of inquiry”(52). The interior character of a person is the most important object of analysis, and the exterior life serves a supporting role in this analysis. It is left to the writer to decide whether or not that interiority is ‘displayed in actions’ within his text. Introspection is thus the chief goal of writing an autobiography. The chronology of a life may be valuably relayed and can perform useful functions, however, an autobiography would not be an autobiography without a description of the progress and evaluation of the interior person. Even though their role is a secondary one, the external facts and events are of importance and value to both the process of writing autobiography and the resulting autobiographical text in several ways. “Through such a retrospective examination, the

3 exterior life will hold but the second place in attention, as being the imperfect offspring of that internal state which it is the primary and more difficult object to review”(52). Even though the facts and events come second they are still valuable to the autobiographical process. This becomes evident when Foster explains what a description of the development of a person’s character should look like and entail.

What I am recommending is to follow the order of time, and reduce your recollections, from the earliest period to the present, into as simple a statement and explanation as you can, of your feelings, opinions and habits, and of the principal circumstances through each stage that have influenced them, till they have become at last what they now are (14-15).

Foster advises any aspiring autobiographer to create a chronological overview of his or her life from the earliest moment of recollection to the present, with a focus on ‘feelings, opinions, and habits’. Because, according to Foster, the first way in which the external facts and events can be valuable is because of the impact they can have on ‘feelings, opinions, and habits’, in other words; the influence they can have on the interior life. This is the first way in which external facts and events manifest themselves as influential. The second purpose they serve is to aid the examination of a past life as well as provide the resulting narrative of that introspection with the chronological aspect of autobiography. “The chief circumstances of his practical life will, however, require to be noted, both for the purpose of so much illustration as they will afford of the state of his mind, and because they mark the points, and distinguish the stages of his progress”(52- 53). Thirdly, then, the circumstances of a life can provide an illustration of a person’s state of mind. The importance of truthfulness for Foster’s conception of autobiography becomes especially apparent in his discussion of memory. Memory is of essential importance in order to write a truthful autobiography. Without it, introspection is of little use or even impossible. Thus, when memory fails it makes it difficult for the interior and the exterior to come together in a description of one’s life. Foster discusses authenticity of memory, the sparse occurrences of which he highly esteems. Because of the significance Foster places on memory and its function for autobiography it is safe to say that he believed an

4 autobiography had to be accurate, authentic, and truthful. Memory is fundamental to introspection and to the reconstruction of oneself and one’s history in writing. However, memory may not always be reliable or readily available. Foster discusses two different ways in which memory may fail. First of all, memory fails us simply because we forget. “We have not only neglected to observe what our feelings indicated, but have also in a very great degree ceased to remember what they were […] As to my own mind, I perceive that it is becoming uncertain of the exact nature of many feelings”(17). Besides a general negligence of people to note down feelings and what they mean, trying to remember them later on in life becomes harder the more removed one becomes from the event in time. Foster admits that he himself cannot explain some of his feelings because he cannot recall the circumstances that influenced or gave rise to them. Memory does not only fail because we cannot remember our past life properly, Foster also argues that people change over time, which may make it difficult to identify with a younger version of one’s self. “If a reflective aged man were to find […] a record which he had written of himself when he was young […] His consciousness would be strangely confused in the attempt to verify his identity with such a being”(56). Because of the change a person goes through over time it is hard to identify with one’s younger self. In that respect it is hard to describe previous feelings and states of mind precisely as they had been experienced in the moment. It is even more difficult when those states of mind, as well as the accompanying feelings, have been forgotten. Therefore, that which is pivotal to Foster’s understanding of autobiographical writing is threatened by the failing function of memory. There are, however, two ways in which these faults of memory might be remedied so that a crisis between the interior and exterior person can be overcome and an authentic image of the self may be drawn up. The first solution proposed by Foster is to write down the character of one’s self early in life in order to preserve that image, so that it can be retrospectively reviewed later in life. “Might it not be worth for a self- observant person in early life, to preserve, for the inspection of the old man […] a mental likeness of the young one? If it be not drawn near the time, it can never be drawn with sufficient accuracy”(57). The implication is that the events of a life and the character of a person can only be most truthfully documented when the moment of recording is not too far away removed in time from the occurrence and the recorded subject. We may be certain that Foster did not mean that people who want to write autobiography should

5 keep a diary, since, for one, diary entries lack the aspect of retrospection, as they are recorded quite immediately after an event. If a writer would want to use his collection of recorded memoirs for any future autobiographical text “they should not be composed by small daily or weekly accumulations, but at certain considerable intervals, as at the end of each year, or any other measure of time that is ample enough for some definable alteration to have taken place in the character or attainments”(58). In order to reflect on an event properly, enough time needs to have passed, but then again not so much time that the writer has fallen out of touch with his former self. The second type of opportunity that could aid an autobiographic writer in reconstructing the feelings, events, and habits of his life are specific moments of lucidity in which a distinct memory comes back to one’s mind in full force. Foster describes how there are certain moments in which we, without understanding why, suddenly have a very clear image of a specific moment of the past. “I would advise to seize those short intervals of illumination […] in which the genuine aspect of some remote event, or long- forgotten image, is recovered with extreme distinctness by vivid, spontaneous glimpses of thought”(18). These lucid moments are highly valuable since, for a brief moment, the writer has access to details of his past that are not available at other times. In that moment of lucidity the writer is able to give an account of the memory in a way that would otherwise not have been possible. Therefore, the writer should make as much use as possible of such occurrences. Foster’s tone, as he describes how he personally has experienced such an ‘interval of illumination’, clearly communicates the strong appreciation he feels for such instances. Foster describes that he experienced a memory coming back to him in such a powerful way that it almost seemed as if he could see the room and the people in it. The people in the room “were so perfectly restored to my imagination, that I could recognize not only the features, but even the momentary expressions of their countenances, and the tones of their voices”(19). It was almost as if he experienced the memory once more at the moment of recollection. Thus, in Foster’s understanding of an autobiography the recording of the process of one’s character is the most important. It is the essence of life and as such must also be the essence of the description of one. An accurate presentation of a life is achieved by a portrayal of the writer’s interior experiences and feelings combined with and illustrated by the exterior facts and events of his life. This goal, however, can be endangered by inadequate memory function. If one cannot remember the events of his life and how

6 such events sparked changes in one’s character there is no way in which accurate self- reflection can take place. The memory issue can be overcome if the autobiographer makes sure to record events as they occur, making sure to leave enough time between the event and the recording of it to allow for retrospection, as well as by making full use of those rare occasions on which memories that were lost are suddenly triggered and temporarily available to be accurately recorded. Because accuracy of memory and the justification of the development of one’s feelings and character are such prominent issues in Foster’s theory they reveal that Foster believed autobiographies should be truthful and authentic. In November 1759 an article was published in the Idler, discussing the differences between biographers and autobiographers. The author of this article, Samuel Johnson, mostly focuses on a discussion of the different goals of writing biography and autobiography, through which he shares his ideas of what autobiography should be. Also, they reveal which role truthfulness plays in Johnson’s idea of an autobiography. Since Johnson wrote on life writing before the terminological distinction between biography and autobiography was clearly made he understood autobiography to be a form of biography, namely a self-biography. Therefore, his ideas about the correct way in which to write biography are informational for the discussion of autobiography as well. Treadwell states, “his [Johnson’s] essay antedates any terminology that distinguishes autobiography from life-writing in general and he seems to see no need for any such categorical distinction. The historian of his own life is simply an exceptionally well-informed biographer”(10). Moreover, in describing where the biographer fails and the writer of his own life fulfills the role of a biographer better, Johnson does make a distinction between the two. In the distinction he makes, Johnson touches upon the different reasons a biographer and an autobiographer may have for being truthful in their writings and recordings. First of all, Johnson lists the reasons why a biographer could be tempted to be untruthful in his writing about another person’s life. A biographer writes about someone else, he writes about a person to whom he will have a specific relationship. This relationship could be, simply stated, either friendly or antagonistic. Johnson believed that this connection, whichever it may be, would influence the writer to alter and perhaps enhance that relationship by use of his text. “He that writes the life of another is either his friend or his enemy, and wishes either to exalt his praise or

7 aggravate his infamy: many temptations to falsehood will occur in the disguise of passions, too specious to fear much resistance”. Thus, in Johnson’s understanding the biographer will be tempted to write that which is not true and he will not be able to resist it. Another objection Johnson has to biographers is his belief that they do not portray their subject properly, or understand what a good biography ought to contain. “Biography has often been allotted to writers who seem very little acquainted with the nature of their task, or very negligent about the performance”(Rambler). Johnson’s disapproval stems from experience with biographers who are either careless or who do not realize what kind of events and information they need to relay in order to supply the reader with an in-depth and complete portrayal of their subject. In Johnson’s eyes biographers are insufficiently aware of the essence of biography. An important problem he notes is the lack of proper topics and relevant events choose to describe and discuss. The narrative offered by these faulty biographies is often made up of details that are readily available to anyone, and therefore practically public knowledge already. In doing so, the biographer may believe that he is portraying a life, but the only thing he actually offers is a chronological account of one. The biographer lacks a certain depth. “They rarely afford any other account than might be collected from publick papers, but imagine themselves writing a life when they exhibit a chronological series of actions or preferments; and so little regard the manners or behaviour of their heroes”(Rambler). Johnson’s statement can be illuminated by use of Foster’s theory and terminology. A biography is not a biography when it only contains a description of a person’s exterior, the biographer must make sure to include the interior as well. Johnson is troubled by the fact that the biographer fails to understand the importance of the interior in creating a complete image of a person’s life. Foster discussed the importance of a picture of the interior person in relation to autobiography. Because Johnson criticizes biographers for a great lack in this department it becomes clear that his ideas are in accordance with Foster’s theory. Johnson judges the biographers on providing information that, on its own, does not portray an accurate account of a life. “Between falsehood and useless truth there is little difference. As gold which he cannot spend will make no man rich, so knowledge which he cannot apply will make no man wise” (Idler). The chronological relay of a person’s life is of no use to anyone else, it is not valuable information because it is not something others can learn

8 from. A discussion of a person’s interior, of his motives, feelings, and thoughts, however, can be of value to others. Therefore, Johnson deplores a sectional account as much as he would deceit in a biographical or autobiographical text. Subsequently, Johnson gives some advice and clarifies what biographers ought to look out for and describe. “Tell not how any man became great, but how he was made happy; not how he lost the favour of his prince, but how he became discontented with himself”(Idler). Like Foster, Johnson believes that a good biography of any form should reveal a combination of the interior and the exterior person. To provide only a chronological overview of a life is not a valuable pratice on its own. To contrast the work of the biographer Johnson discusses the ways in which a self-biographer, what we would not call an autobiographer, practices life writing. Johnson also explains why he believes an autobiographer would be more likely to produce a truthful text than a biographer would. The main contrast he finds between biographer and autobiographer is based on the idea that someone who writes about his own life has “knowledge of the truth” in a way in which a biographer could never have. Johnson argues that consequently an autobiographical text will be more reliable than a biographical one, because “certainty of knowledge not only excludes mistake, but fortifies veracity”. The knowledge of experience, which the biographer lacks, increases the autobiographer’s authenticity and opportunities for truthfulness. However, Johnson admits the objection could be made that an autobiographer might very well be faced with similar temptations of alteration and enhancement as a biographer. “It may be plausibly objected that his temptations to disguise it are equal to his opportunities of knowing it”. The autobiographer may have more knowledge of the truth, as Johnson states, still, that does not necessarily guarantee that the autobiography will be completely truthful. Nonetheless, Johnson believes that the biographer has more than one motive to cover up the truth or to strategically leave out certain elements, whereas the writer of his own life has only one motive to allure him. “He that speaks of himself has no motive for falsehood or partiality except self-love”. Self-love would be a good reason for an autobiographer to be untruthful, however, Johnson insists that the autobiographer will inherently write more truthful than a biographer could. However, this does not mean readers should simply believe any autobiographical text to be truthful simply. There is a way in which an autobiographer’s motivations to write can be scrutinized. Johnson lays out a notable criterion by which readers and

9 critics will be able to ascertain the motive of the autobiographer. In that way readers can decide for themselves whether they assume the autobiographer to have written out of self-love and whether they suspect the writer of having made any alterations in order to positively enhance his own image. The first criterion is that a writer should sit down “calmly and voluntarily” to assess his life and record it for posterity, or for personal amusement. If that is the case, it may be safely concluded that self-love was not the autobiographer’s incentive. Secondly, an autobiographer who “leaves this account unpublished, may be commonly presumed to tell the truth, since falsehood cannot appease his own mind, and fame will not be heard beneath the tomb”. If a writer records his life just for himself and not for the public, there is no sensible reason the text will contain fabrications since there seems no use in lying to oneself. Similarly, Johnson finds it unfeasible that a writer would try to enhance his own image if his text would not be published during his own lifetime. Since, after passing away, the opinion of posterity would not be of much use to him. With that in mind, it would be safe to say Johnson would have approved of Wordsworth’s autobiographical poem The Prelude. Wordsworth wrote for himself and a handful of close friends and relatives, with the goal of gaining an understanding of the growth of his own mind, and insisted that the text would not be published during his lifetime. Johnson distinguishes between biographer and autobiographer mainly on the basis of their respective proximity to, as he calls it, “knowledge of truth”. Johnson’s issue with biographers is that they fail to understand what they ought to include in order to write a good and accurate biography. He believes that biographers fail to understand the importance of the essential interior character and often write only about the exterior. Also, Johnson argues that a biographer could easily be tempted to alter events and write untruthfully. A self- biographer however, has a closer relationship to the truth and therefore is more likely to write a text that is authentic and truthful. These arguments, as well as Johnson’s criteria for truthful self-writing, reveal that Johnson believes truthfulness to be necessary for biography and autobiography. The British scholar Isaac D’Israeli dedicated a chapter of his Miscellanies (1796) to observations on ‘diaries, self-biography, and self-characters’. As with Foster’s and Johnson’s texts, D’Israeli discusses different forms of self-writing, the possible reasons for writing an autobiography, and what was expected and accepted of autobiographical texts and their writers. D’Israeli also defends the genre of self-writing. The value of

10 writing about oneself and of reading about someone else’s life and character was not a generally accepted at that time. In the same year as the Miscellanies were published, defending the value of autobiographical texts, Coleridge, in the preface to his poems, questioned why readers should be interested in the description of other people’s lives. “The communicativeness of our nature leads us to describe our own sorrows; […] but how are the PUBLIC interested in your sorrows or your description?”(4 Coleridge’s Poetry). Coledridge does not question why people would want to write about themselves since it is in our nature to do so. However, he questions why others should be interested in reading an autobiographical text. D’Israeli most likely would have answered that an autobiography is inherently interesting and valuable because it portrays an instance of humanity and preserves that recording for future generations. He states that the person who takes the time to study his own mind and who has the diligence to note down all changes of his “opinions, the fallacies of his passions, and the vacillations of his resolutions, will form a journal to himself peculiarly interesting, not undeserving the meditations of others. Nothing which presents a faithful relation of humanity, is inconsiderable to a human being”(97-98). D’Israeli echoes Johnson who believed that a well written, truthful, and authentic autobiography could be valuable for others when he states that an autobiographical account is worthy of consideration as long as it faithfully portrays a life. Johnson warned readers to look out for motives of self-love when reading an autobiographical text. Similarly, D’Israeli believes that the reason to create an autobiographical text should spring from a desire to write for oneself first and foremost. However, the resulting text of self-examination can also be of interest to others, provided that it is a faithful account. Again in line with Johnson, D’Israeli sets some conditions under which an autobiography should be written. “There are certain things which relate to ourselves, which no one can know so well; a great genius obliges posterity when he records them. But they must be composed with calmness, with simplicity, and with sincerity”(101-102). Autobiography is valuable because it allows access to the inner workings of a person that cannot become known if it were not for autobiography. However, in order for an autobiography to be worth a reader’s consideration it must have been written under the right conditions and with the right intentions.

11 D’Israeli explains his ideas on self- writing by distinguishing between two forms of autobiography. “There are two species of minor Biography which may be discriminated; detailing our own life, and portraying our own character”(101). The first description concerns the kind of autobiography in which someone records the details of his life, what Foster would call the exterior, and the second kind is a depiction of one’s own character, the interior in Foster’s terminology. Foster argued that an autobiography should contain both the exterior and interior to be valuable, but D’Israeli separates the two. Both forms would be called autobiography today, however D’Israeli calls them ‘species of biography’ since he understood autobiography to be a form of biography, like Johnson did. The first form that is described, the writing of one’s life, is not necessarily always a successful practice according to D’Israeli. “The writing our own life has been practiced with various success; it is a delicate operation; a stroke too much may destroy the effect of the whole. If once we detect an author deceiving or deceived, it is a livid spot which infects the entire body”(101). Thus, the success of an autobiography depends on its truthfulness. As Johnson and Foster, D’Israeli places a lot of value on sincerity as well. D’Israeli argues that when one instance of deceit is present in the text and when the author is suspected of insincerity it affects a reader’s opinion of the whole text. As will be discussed later on, this response to arguably deceitful autobiography is still the same with readers today. The second form of autobiography D’Israeli discusses, is the kind in which the writer describes his own character. D’Israeli does not particularly approve of this kind of self-writing, mostly because he believes it to be too self-indulgent. The examples he uses to illustrate this type of autobiography are mostly French texts. “There is another species of minor Biography, which, I am willing to believe, could only have been invented by the most refined and vainest nation. A literary fashion formerly prevailed with authors, to present the public with their own Character”(104). He attributes this style of self-writing to French writers, the vainest nation in his mind. D’Israeli quotes from a French autobiographical text that is focused on the author’s own character, in order to support his statement. The writer in question describes his own looks in extensive detail, as well as his intellect, his agreeable conversation skills, and does not hesitate to share that he has often been complemented on his brilliant mind. According to D’Israeli such a style of writing had never practiced by English writers who he considers to be more modest than the French. “I do not recollect such a custom among

12 our more modest writers”(104). This French style of portraying one’s own character is the embodiment of self-love and egotism Johnson warned writers and readers to be weary of. D’Israeli was concerned about egotism as well, which is why he stated that autobiography should be written with “calmness, with simplicity, and with sincerity”. In the eyes of English Romantic era readers, texts that focus too much on one’s own character cross a line because the tone of such texts is too ostentatious. “The French long cherished this darling egotism […] every writer then considered his Character as necessary as his Preface. I confess myself much delighted with these self- descriptions of persons whom no one knows”(105). Although D’Israeli disapproves of this kind of autobiography, he enjoys reading them at the same time, almost as if it was a guilty pleasure. The main problem with these French autobiographical texts is their air of egotism. If a writer appears to be trying to ‘dazzle’ his audience critics and readers become suspicious of the text and author. The pitfall of writing about oneself is egotism. Only a fine line separates a proper autobiographer from an egotistical one. “If he is solicitous of charming and dazzling, he is not writing his life, but pourtraying the ideal adventurer of a romance. […] Simplicity of language and thought, are sweet and natural graces, which every Self-biographer should study”(103). Like Wordsworth would advocate five years later in The Preface, D’Israeli prescribes a simple and natural style of writing best suited for writing about oneself. Simple language is essential in order to write a proper autobiography and to steer clear of egotism. There should be no attempts at idealizing an image by use of fancy and ostentatious language. To portray an ideal is to portray an image that is not realistic and such an ideal image does not lead to a truthful text. An autobiography was expected to be authentic and truthful and therefore also realistic. D’Israeli’s ideas have a lot in common with those of Johnson. Both believe that a well-executed autobiography is a truthful and sincere one, and that an autobiography’s value depends on it being truthful. Also, both critics list criteria to indicate under which circumstances and with which goals an autobiography should be written. For Johnson it is most important to be able to rule out self-love as a motive for the autobiographer to write his text. If self-love was indeed not an incentive to write the autobiography readers may be certain that the text is truthful. D’Israeli’s criteria resemble those of Johnson in as much as he agrees an autobiography should be composed in a calm state. He, however, also stresses that the language used to write an autobiography should be

13 simple. An autobiographer should avoid ostentatious and glittery language since such a style of writing paints an idealized image, the type of image that any autobiographer should make sure to avert. Johnson warns for self-love, D’Israeli in his turn focuses on egotism. The two issues are related because where self-love is the incentive to write an autobiography the resulting autobiographical text displays the writer’s egotism. Another essential aspect to successful autobiography is the enabling of a sympathetic connection between the reader and the text. One of the ways in which this can be achieved is by using recognizable topics and issues to describe. Johnson, in his article in the Rambler, discusses the sympathetic connection that may arise between reader and text. Johnson argues that it is important for a writer to adopt relatable topics in his text in order to move the reading public. “Our passions are therefore more strongly moved, in proportion as we can more readily adopt the pains or pleasure proposed to our minds, by recognizing them as once our own, or considering them as naturally incident to our state of life”. In order to have an effect on readers it is important that the writer enables the reader to recognize the events he describes as something the reader may have experienced himself at one point, or as a situation that is recognized as an inherently natural part of life. Even the most artful writer will have trouble evoking a readers’ sympathy if he does not make use of such recognizable and relatable topics. “It is not easy for the most artful writer to give us an interest in happiness or misery, which we think ourselves never likely to feel, and with which we have never yet been made acquainted”. Johnson states that such ‘kindred images’ are mostly to be found in life narratives “and therefore no species of writing seems more worthy of cultivation than biography, since none can be more delightful or more useful, none can more certainly enchain the heart by irresistible interest”. Therefore, the reader’s sympathy is essential to acceptance of autobiography. A biographer will generally focus on events of his subject’s life that are readily observable, thus lacking a depth. “He that recounts the life of another, commonly dwells most upon conspicuous events, lessens the familiarity of his tale to increase its dignity, […] and endeavours to hide the man that he may produce a hero”. As discussed, Johnson believed that biographers chose the wrong elements of their subject’s life to describe. They focused on the exterior person and failed to include a record of the interior character. Also, he believed that biographers would be easily tempted to veil the truth in order to enhance the image of the person described. However, in doing so the

14 biographer removes the aspects of a person that readers could relate to. By leaving out thoughts and feelings, that might be uncomely, in order to exalt the biographer’s subject, it will be less easy for a reader to connect to the text on a sympathetic level since the understanding and recognition of similarity in experience is abated. All three critics, Foster, Johnson, and D’Israeli, agree on the importance of truthfulness in autobiography and disapprove of alteration. In order to write a truthful autobiography certain elements need to be avoided since those aspects threaten truthfulness in different ways. First of all, Foster discusses how faulty memory can hinder the creation of a truthful autobiography. Secondly, Johnson explains how an autobiographer may be tempted to alter the truth in order to enhance his own image in society. Alteration in this scenario would most likely be spurred on by self-love. Lastly, D’Israeli discourages the use of flamboyant and boastful language. Such a style of writing could not lead to a truthful account of one’s life since it can only lead to an idealized image. Foster and Johnson both state that the description of one’s interior character is crucial for an autobiography. Exterior events can and sometimes should be included, if only to provide the self-narrative with a chronological order. They should, however, hold a subsequent place to the description of a person’s interior. D’Israeli does not look favorably on autobiographies that focus too strongly on the writer’s own character. The writer of an autobiographical text with such a focus could be easily suspected of egotism. Thus, the line between a proper autobiography, which includes insights into the writer’s inner person, and an egotistic autobiography is very thin and easily crossed. As an autobiographer it is therefore essential to make sure not to write out of self-love in order to avoid being suspected of egotism. All three critics discussed stress the importance of truthfulness and thus frown upon alterations. However, autobiographers should not share too much private detail either. During the Romantic era there was a veil in place between what could be shared and what ought to remain private. Autobiographers were expected to keep this veil in place, even if that meant they had to make alterations or omissions. In order to write a successful autobiography, writers had to make sure their text was trusted and that readers would be able to relate to the experiences described. Truthfulness was an essential aspect of autobiography in the eyes of many critics, however, too much truthfulness would not do. A fine line existed between personal details that were deemed to remain private and interior experiences that made an autobiography

15 valuable. Egotism, sharing too much private details, and using flamboyant language were all features to be avoided by autobiographers. In that sense, truthfulness was essential but only up to a certain point. Alteration was allowed, perhaps even necessary, in order to maintain the balance between what one can share and what one should keep to oneself. In the first chapter of his famous Biographia Literaria Coleridge addresses his readers with a declaration of his intentions and topics to be addressed, and in doing so sets the scene for what readers may expect from this text. He states: “it will be found, that the least of what I have written concerns myself personally. I have used the narration chiefly for the purpose of giving a continuity to the work”(159). On first instance, it may appear to be a declaration of which genre Coleridge intends the Biographia to fall under, namely; to say that the work is not autobiographical. If the text does not concern the person Coleridge, then it could not be an autobiography. Yet the text has been considered to be autobiographical during Coleridge’s time and still is today. The purpose of his statement can be interpreted in two different ways when making use of Foster’s and D’Israeli’s theories. Starting with Foster’s theory, Coleridge’s statement could be interpreted as an explanation for the use of autobiographical elements such as important life events in his text. In this light the intended purpose of including elements from his own life is merely to give the work a chronological order and not because the events of his life are necessarily what his public should take away from his work. When using D’Israeli’s description of different types of biography as a lens through which to comprehend this statement the focus lies somewhere else. Coleridge is careful to place himself amongst the first type of biographers identified by D’Israeli, the biographer that describes his life, and makes sure to steer clear from the second kind in which the writer describes his own character. The latter type of biographer is quickly accused of self-love and egotism, the type of autobiographer Coleridge does not want to be confused with. Coleridge seems to have been successful in that department. In The Spirit of the Age Hazlitt says of Coleridge “Mr Coleridge talks of himself, without being an egotist, for in him the individual is always merged in the abstract and general”(651 Qtd. Coleridge’s Poetry). Hazlitt believes that Coleridge could no be seen as an egotist because Coleridge speaks of himself only in relation to the general. He describes parts of himself and his life in order to serve a purpose greater than merely speaking of only himself.

16 An egotist is someone who speaks about his own person and character too much, as D’Israeli illustrated by use of the French autobiographer who in his text mostly described his own character, how smart he was, and how much his brilliance was complemented on and appreciated by others. Besides this, there are two more aspects autobiographers should take care to avoid if they want to write an authentic and truthful autobiography. The first of these two is the ‘dazzling’ language D’Israeli warned for. A flashy and ostentatious style of writing is associated with idealization and untruthfulness, while D’Israeli’s proposed simple language creates an aura of authenticity. Lastly, autobiographers should make sure not too share too much private detail. Even though Romantic era autobiographers were expected to describe their life by recording interior as well as exterior experiences a fine line existed between parts of the interior person that could be openly discussed and those that should be kept private. Autobiographers were expected to keep this division in place. An anonymous critic writing in Blackwood exclaimed, “what a veil is here rent away!” in response to Hazlitt’s autobiographical work Liber Amoris (56 Qtd. Treadwell) which proves that these three issues should be carefully avoided if an autobiographer wants to write an acceptable autobiography. However, autobiographies, such as Hazlitt’s, kept pushing the boundary on the amount of shared personal detail that was accepted. Because of this, Treadwell notices that autobiography changed the existing balance. “Less polemical observers [than Wilson] might not go so far in their censure, but would still agree that autobiography disturbed a balance which those shrouds and veils existed to preserve”(56 Treadwell). Autobiography pushed boundaries and in doing so changed the playing field which critics tried to demarcate through their prescriptive texts. Rousseau’s autobiography is an emblematical example of an autobiographical text that shares too much. Treadwell describes the reception of the Confessions from the time when the text was published in English in 1783. Critics were bewildered by the work because there was no category in which to place the Confessions. Rousseau’s text was not necessarily suspected of dishonesty but the overabundance of shared personal details shocked the readers, even more so because of the nature of the private details he revealed. “Their scepticism was instinctive, not based on any evidence for suspecting a fraud; the publication of the Confessions, with its embarrassingly frank admissions of masochistic eroticism, compulsive onanism, opportunism, and dishonesty, simply did not make sense”(38 Treadwell). Treadwell argues that the sharing of private

17 experiences of this nature was something the English reading public was not used to. There was no frame of reference in place by which to understand and categorize this autobiography, which lead to uncertainties about the text.

2. Simplicity: the Road to Truthfulness

Simple language use is one of the main ways to avoid egotism in self-writing as well as it is essential for the creation of a realistic, authentic, and sincere image of oneself. As D’Israeli stated, every self- biographer should study “simplicity of language and thought” because that would ensure realism and authenticity in the text. William Wordsworth advocated a similar goal in The Preface he wrote to his and Coleridge’s collection of poems called the Lyrical Ballads and shows that straightforward and simple language was of major importance in the Romantic era. In The Preface Wordsworth argues for the use of a simple style of language and argues against the at that time popular poetic style that was used by many poets. Poetry and autobiography are brought closer together through Wordsworth’s discussion of the importance of simple language. Even though Wordsworth’s simple language theory is essential for our current understanding of the Romantic era, at the time his ideas received a lot of criticism and were not immediately accepted. Wordsworth did not necessarily want to write a preface to his and Coleridge’s Lyrical Ballads. He did not see himself as a critic and did not want to be thought of as such; he was a poet. However, urged on by Coleridge, among others, Wordsworth realized that some introduction would be necessary, since his poetry was so essentially different from the style of poetry people were used to. “Yet I am sensible, that there would be some impropriety in abruptly obtruding upon the Public, without a few words of introduction, Poems so materially different from those, upon which general approbation is at present bestowed”(560). By writing The Preface Wordsworth hoped to offer his readers an account of his ideas and theories, reflected in the poetry of the Lyrical Ballads, so that they would understand why he chose this specific path and style. Even though at the time his theories of ‘rustic life’ and the ‘true language of men’ were received with a fair amount of skepticism, The Preface has come to be regarded as an invaluable text by now. Not only does the text provide an introduction to the poems of the Lyrical Ballads, it also provides an insight into Wordsworth’s opinions and thoughts

18 on poetry, poets, and the act of writing poetry in general which are informative for an understanding of Romantic autobiography. The most important implications from the text have to do with Wordsworth’s ideas on the type of language poets ought to use in writing poetry, his reasons for rejecting ‘poetic diction’ as a style of poetry, which is similar to the ostentatious language D’Israeli criticized, and consequently the implications these matters have on truthfulness in poetry. Wordsworth and Coleridge’s main object for writing the poetry of the Lyrical Ballads was to describe events from daily life and to describe these in a style language that resembles daily spoken language. “The principal object […] was to chuse 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; and, at the same time, to throw over them a certain colouring of imagination”(561). When one focuses on this statement from The Preface alone it seems a rather straightforward idea: according to Wordsworth an author should choose events from everyday life and describe them in a style of language that reflects daily speech to write good poetry. Wordsworth’s style of poetry was different from the poetic diction popular at the time because he aimed to write in a way that came as close as possible to everyday language. He strongly disapproved of poetic diction and actively advocated the use of every day language for writing because “Poets do not write for Poets alone, but for men”(570). Therefore, the first reason to write about recognizable everyday events in a straightforward style is because Wordsworth believed poetry should be accessible to all. If such accessibility can be achieved it enables a sympathetic link between reader and text, which was of great importance to Wordsworth. In order to achieve a sympathetic link between reader and text the language had to be of such a nature that the events and descriptions relayed would be easily understandable by anyone so that the reader may recognize similar events in his own life. Secondly, the language used plays a significant role in Wordsworth’s idea that poetry possesses the ability to express truth. The aim to “bring [his] language near to the language of men”(564) inherently entails some sort of promise to try to be truthful: “I have at all times endeavoured to look steadily at my subject, consequently, I hope that there is in the Poems little falsehood of description”(564). The description of a subject and the language used to describe it go hand in hand and together create an aura of authenticity. Poetic diction, however, obscures the message and therefore steers away from truthfulness in the same way

19 ostentatious language does in autobiography according to D’Israeli. Brooke Hopkins argues that Wordsworth was not necessarily worried whether his readers would believe that what he had written was true, rather, he cared whether or not his readers would be able to connect to his text on a sympathetic level. “Wordsworth was far less concerned to persuade his reader to believe in the truth of what was contained in the Prelude, than he was to persuade the reader to respond to it on the basis of his own personal experience”(94-95). However, Wordsworth’s statement proclaiming that he hoped his poems would contain ‘little falsehood of description’ contradicts Hopkins’ argument. She does however raise an important point about the role of sympathy for Wordsworth. A poet’s goal is […] to describe experiences in such a manner that the reader can possibly experience the described event themselves (103 Hopkins). Importantly, some form of recognition has to take place to create this sympathetic connection. “In order to be able to read his poem properly, that is, to respond to it with the heart as well as with the head, its readers would, to a certain degree at least, have to ‘recollect’ themselves as they read, to recognize the analogies between his experience”(106 Hopkins). Not surprisingly perhaps, the key to writing in a manner which evokes reader’s sympathy and which triggers them to think about their own lives in relation to what they have read is the style of language employed. In expression of his disapproval of poetic diction Wordsworth states that by utilizing this obscure style of writing these poets “separate themselves from the sympathies of men”(562 Preface) and it is precisely the sympathy of the reader that enables them to read and understand poetry. Thus, Wordsworth’s simple and natural style of poetry enhances sympathetic connections between readers and poetry. Wordsworth expressed the desire to evade ‘falsehood of description’ and aimed to achieve this through his style of writing. He believed that poetic diction made poetry abstruse. Contrastingly, a poetic style that resembled language used in daily life could elucidate poetry and its message. In the appendix to The Preface Wordsworth explains poetic diction in greater detail and elaborates upon the reasons why he believes this style of poetry cannot portray a truthful image. As he describes, the earliest poets used figurative language, but they wrote naturally and their descriptions were based on experience. Later on, other poets wished to equal the success of these earliest poets and they adopted the figures of speech that had been used to describe events and ‘passions’. However, they did so without having experienced the same passion the earliest poets

20 had. By doing so they abused what they had copied; they applied the borrowed figures of speech to describe objects to which that specific language had no natural connection. “A language was thus insensibly produced, differing materially from the real language of men in any situation”(576). Thus, the language used in poetry had become disjointed from the real language Wordsworth continues to refer to. The new poets were not in touch with the exterior experiences that had given rise to the descriptions and language use of the earlier poets. The figures of speech and poetic style that had been created by these earlier poets became further and further removed from what they had represented, from the incidents that had brought them to life. Therefore, this poetic style could no longer describe an experience in a truthful manner. The description had been cut off from the original object, and pasted onto a new one; one to which no natural connection existed. That is why Wordsworth believed these descriptions to be untruthful, incomprehensible and perhaps even meaningless. Another way in which Wordsworth’s ideas come close to those of the Romantic critics discussing autobiography is by his discussion of what a poet is and what a poet ought to be and how these qualities distinguish the poet from other people. In this discussion the extent to which a poet may create events or whether he ought to base his work on real life experiences is discussed as well. Compared to other people the poet excels in the aspects of sensibility, enthusiasm, and knowledge; moreover, the poet “[…] rejoices more than other man 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”(567 Norton). According to this idea, a poet enjoys to mull over feelings and emotions that are called forth and perceived by events that can be experienced in daily life, however, the poet also has a custom of creating them if such emotions or events are not at hand. Wordsworth continues:

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, yet do more nearly resemble the passions produced by real events (567 Norton).

21 To experience something makes one feel; experiences have effects on people. Such feelings and effects are what a poet tries to recreate for his readers. To read about an experience makes it come to life and in a similar way conjures up feelings that would accompany a real life experience. Those are the ‘passions’ Wordsworth keeps referring to. According to Wordsworth a poet has a predisposition by which he can experience passions from fictive events in a similar way to actually experienced situations. The poet is contrasted with an ordinary man, one who does not have the sensibilities of a poet and who would be able to experience such passions only from personal experience. Fictive situations may be conjured up by a poet, when there are no real life events at hand to describe, however, these descriptions should resemble real life in a highly precise manner, in order for them to be as realistic as possible. Wordsworth is somewhat vague about the passions resulting from fiction; they do not equal passions that arise from real events, but at the same time resemble them ‘more nearly’. Wordsworth explains that the different kinds of passion, the one based on fiction and the other on reality, are easily discernable from one another since they are not equal. Consequently, the reader would not be fooled and could easily discern between a description of a fictive event and of a real life experience. However, fictionalized passions, so to speak, have to closely resemble a passion resulting from an actual event in order to be considered authentic. Like the descriptions of events in autobiography the events relayed in poetry should be realistically portrayed, even if they are fictive. But how can a passion based on fiction ‘more nearly resemble the passions produced by real events’? To answer this question we must look further on in the text where Wordsworth continues on the idea of the importance of resembling reality when a poet chooses to write fiction. He explains how a poet could make sure that passions resulting from a fictive description come as close as possible to a passion that resulted from something or someone encountered in real life.

However exalted a notion we would wish to cherish of the character of a Poet, it is obvious, that, while he describes and imitates passions, his situation is altogether slavish and mechanical, compared with the freedom and power of real and substantial action and suffering. So that it will be the wish of the Poet to bring his feelings near to those of the persons whose feelings he describes, nay, for short spaces of time

22 perhaps, to let himself slip into an entire delusion, and even confound and identify his own feelings with theirs; modifying only the language which is thus suggested to him, by a consideration that he describes for a particular purpose, that of giving pleasure. Here, then, he will apply the principle on which I have so much insisted, namely, that of selection; on this he will depend for removing what would otherwise be painful or disgusting in the passion; he will feel that there is no necessity to trick out or elevate nature: and the more industriously he applies this principle, the deeper will be his faith that no words, which his fancy or imagination can suggest, will be to be compared with those which are in the emanations of reality and truth (567 Norton).

To imitate passions cannot be the same in the effect it has on readers as the real deal could. However, the poet must do everything he can to get as close to reality as possible. In order to try to imitate an experiences and create good poetry out of the description thereof, the poet must temporarily slip into someone else’s skin, he must call upon his empathic skills and utilize them to his utmost ability, perhaps even so intensely that for a moment he forgets himself and in his imagination has become the person who’s emotions and events he intends to relay. Most importantly, Wordsworth here states that the poet may only modify the language in which he chooses to describe the events and emotions. The only reason for this allowance of imagination in this instance is the fact that the poet needs to serve the specific purpose of giving pleasure via his poetry. The event or persons that are described then need to be authentic. Wordsworth’s statement reveals another salient issue for poetry that also plays an important role for autobiography. The veil between private details that should remain private and those that can be shared with the public also exists within poetry. “Here, then, he will apply the principle on which I have so much insisted, namely, that of selection; on this he will depend for removing what would otherwise be painful or disgusting in the passion” (567 Norton). The selection process Wordsworth speaks of is necessary so that the poet can maintain the veil and demonstrates Wordsworth’s approval of alteration under certain circumstances. The selection process allows the poet to alter descriptions so that he may leave out any vulgarities that belong to the spectrum of privacy one should not wish to share. This means that the poet is allowed to

23 leave out certain elements or descriptions at his discretion in order to maintain propriety. This attitude towards alteration in order to maintain the veil between private and public spheres is the similar in its prescription to discussion on autobiography during the Romantic era. There is another way in which the poet is discernable from others according to Wordsworth. The poet differentiates himself once more by his ability to be more accurate and to stand closer to truthfulness than men in other professions, such as biographers, historians, and lawyers, could be. “The obstacles which stand in the way of the fidelity of the Biographer and the Historian, and of their consequent utility, are incalculably greater than those which are to be encountered by the Poet”(568). Thus, the poet is closer to fidelity and truth. The only restriction the poet needs to adhere to is to provide his readers with pleasure, he does not have to fulfill a role such as other professions require, he can simply be “a Man”. The point Wordsworth makes is that poets are naturally inclined to stand closer to the truth, in a similar way as Johnson believed the autobiographer to stand closer to the truth than a biographer. The poet mainly differentiates himself from men in professions of science; the attitude towards truth is the key element in that differentiation. “The Man of Science seeks truth as a remote and unknown benefactor; he cherishes and loves it in his solitude: the Poet, singing a song in which all human beings join with him, rejoices in the presence of truth as our visible friend and hourly companion”(569). The poet is concerned with general truth, events and objects that all readers should be able to recognize. In Wordsworth’s understanding the poet distinguishes himself from other people mainly because of his relationship to truth, his ability to describe passions arising from experiences in a realistic manner, and by doing so is able to provide his readers with passions and sense of experience similar to those arising from real life events. The use of simple language is the key to achieve this. Wordsworth’s theory of poetry, poets, and simple language draws many parallels with the previous discussion on autobiographers, truthfulness, and autobiographical texts. The poetic diction Wordsworth disapproves of obscures language in the same way ostentatious language does for D’Israeli. Both forms of language use have to be avoided in order to create a truthful and realistic description of an experience. Both Wordsworth and D’Israeli propose to use simple language to achieve this goal. The image Wordsworth draws of a poet is similar to Johnson’s idea of an autobiographer, both stand closer to truth and are therefore more inclined to create

24 truthful text than others. Wordsworth allows for a selection process so that what is ‘disgusting in the passions’ may be kept hidden, thus alteration is only allowed when used to keep the veil in tact. As stated, the new theory proposed by Wordsworth in The Preface was received with much criticism. One of the critics was Coleridge, Wordsworth’s co-author. Even though the Lyrical Ballads was produced by a communal effort of Wordsworth and Coleridge, each one having added works of his own, Coleridge did not wholly agree with all Wordsworth stated in The Preface. In July 1802, when the second edition of the Lyrical Ballads had been published, he wrote to Robert Southey “I rather suspect that some where or other there is a radical Difference in our theoretical opinions respecting Poetry”(467 Lyrical Ballads Ed. Gamer & Porter). This difference of opinion had become evident because of Wordsworth’s Preface. In a letter to his friend William Sotheby from July 1802, Coleridge makes sure to distance himself somewhat from The Preface; he describes to Sotheby how the different parts and topics of The Preface arose from conversations between himself and Wordsworth, but that he does not agree fully with the resulting text and its arguments. He stresses to add that the intention had at first been that Coleridge should write a preface to the collection of poetry.1 Throughout his personal correspondence and in his Biographia Literaria Coleridge explains in detail which aspects of The Preface specifically he disagrees with. A prominent issue put forth by Coleridge is the faulty line of argumentation in Wordsworth’s discussion of the notion of ‘real’ language versus poetic diction. First of all, it is important to note that Coleridge did agree Wordsworth’s disapproval of poetic diction. “It is likewise true, that I warmly accord with W. in his abhorrence of these poetic Licences, as they are called, which are indeed mere tricks of Convenience & Laziness”(466 Lyrical Ballads Gamer & Porter). The disagreement arises from Wordsworth proposed style of language to use when writing poetry. In chapter seventeen of the Biographia Literaria, Coleridge discusses this issue extensively. A crucial point of criticism is the idea expressed by Wordsworth that language could be real. “I object, in the very first instance, to an equivocation in the use of the word ‘real’. Every man’s language varies, according to the extent of his knowledge, […] and the

1 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor & Wordsworth, William. Lyrical Ballads 1798 and 1800. Ed. Michael Gamer and Dahlia Porter. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2008.

25 depth or quickness of his feelings”(343). Essentially, then, Coleridge challenges Wordsworth’s proposition for the use of real language in poetry because it is an unfeasible one since no such thing exists. However, the crux of the matter lies with Wordsworth’s explanation of the concept, not with the idea itself. Coleridge agrees that poetic diction is not a suitable style for poetry; however, a real language as described by Wordsworth is not the solution. Thus, Coleridge does agree that simple language is the way to overcome obscure poetic diction. However, he sets out the premises of the idea of more simple language in a different way. “For ‘real’ therefore, we must substitute ordinary, or lingua communis [the common tongue]”(344 Biographia). Thus, naturally spoken language, the language that is used in daily conversation, is a suitable option and the right description of this idea. Notably, Coleridge never completely disagreed with Wordsworth on the language issue; he merely did not believe that Wordsworth’s description and explanation were correct. Therefore, Coleridge believed that The Preface could at times have been wrongly interpreted. In Biographia Literaria Coleridge takes it upon himself to set the record straight and to specify what he believed Wordsworth had intended to express. Coleridge states that he is certain Wordsworth’s intention was to aim for “a species of excellence […] to [write] verses in which everything was expressed, just as one would wish to talk, and yet all dignified, attractive, and interesting; and all at the same time perfectly correct as to the measure of syllables and rhyme”(366 Biographia). A possible misunderstanding of Wordsworth’s intentions could have arisen from Wordsworth’s choice to take objects and language from ‘low’ and ‘rustic’ life, a topic which at times had been pleasurable to a higher class public, who would derive enjoyment out of an imitation of the inelegant ways of the lower classes. Coleridge stresses his disapproval of this concept and urges his readers that this in no way had been Wordsworth’s intention. “In order to repeat that pleasure of doubtful moral effect, which persons of elevated rank and of superior refinement oftentimes derive from a happy imitation of the rude unpolished manners and discourse of their inferiors”(335 Biographia). On the contrary, Wordsworth chose this style of everyday language “because in that condition the essential passions of the heart find a better soil”(335 Biographia), in that way the language of poetry would be more transparent, direct, and emphatic. Coleridge summarizes what he believed Wordsworth was trying to express in The Preface “he suffered himself to express, in terms at once too large and too exclusive, his

26 predilection for a style the most remote possible from the false and showy splendour which he wished to explode”(365 Biographia). In this statement Coleridge once more shows his support of Wordsworth’s criticism of poetic diction. However, Coleridge asserts that because of his strong disapproval of this style of poetry Wordsworth had, in his desire to propose a style as different as humanly possible from poetic diction, missed the mark. To that end, Coleridge proposes a slightly different term for Wordsworth’s concept. Coleridge’s support of this newly proposed style and his description of poetic diction supports the earlier discussion of language and truth. By describing the opposed style as ‘false’ and accusing it of ‘showy splendour’ Coleridge states his opinion on language and truth. Therefore, the style of language used, and the type of description that accompanies it, is a key player in Romantic era thinking on text and truth. Coleridge’s wife, Sara, wrote a letter to their friend Thomas Poole in March 1799 commenting that the volume of poems written by her husband and Wordsworth was not received very well. “The Lyrical Ballads are laughed at and disliked by all with very few excepted”(58 Critical heritage). The poetry and the new style of the Lyrical Ballads were disliked, however this also means that the theory behind it was rejected. Even though The Preface was only added to the volume in the second edition, the advertisement that accompanied the first edition already indicated and explained that the reader should expect a different style of poetry in these works. Therefore, the new approach taken by Wordsworth and Coleridge was known from the beginning, and addressed into more detail and accompanied by motivation in the second edition published in 1802. Dorothy Wordsworth, Wordsworth’s sister, however, was a bit more optimistic than Sara Coleridge. She realized that these poems, which were so essentially different from what the public was used to, would take some time to gain respect and approval. In September 1800 she writes to her longtime friend Mrs. John Marshall that the number of volumes sold exceeded their expectations, and that they were happily surprised by the amount of people who liked the work. She immediately adds to say that she and Wordsworth had never doubted the work would become appreciated “not that we had ever much doubt of its finally making its way, but we knew that poems so different from what have in general become popular immediately after their publication were not likely to be admired all at once”(458 Lyrical Ballads Ed. Gamer & Porter). Sara Coleridge was not wrong, but neither was Dorothy Wordsworth.

27 Francis Jeffrey was one of the critics who did not agree with the newly proposed style of poetry offered by the Lyrical Ballads. He shares his concerns in the Edinburg Review, appealing to people’s respect of religion and its position as unquestionable authority within society. Jeffrey states that poetry shares with religion that the practice and theory of it was arranged long ago and the authority of it should not be questioned. “Poetry has this much, at least, in common with religion, that its standards were fixed long ago, by certain inspired writers, whose authority it is no longer lawful to call in question”(409 Lyrical Ballads Ed. Gamer & Porter). Jeffrey does not want the established order of things to be questioned. Moreover, Jeffrey had been watching the development of this new style of poetry over a number of years and in his eyes it had grown into a sect, with Wordsworth seated at the head of the table. “The peculiar doctrines of this sect, it would not, perhaps, be very easy to explain; but, that they are dissenters from the established systems in poetry and criticism, is admitted, and proved indeed, by the whole tenor of their compositions”(409-10). The established order is essentially what Jeffrey believed should be held onto, and in this strong belief the poets that were trying to bring about changes were not only viewed as people he disagreed with, but as dissenters. His argument is that the proposed simplicity of the language did not have its intended effect. “It is in such passages, accordingly, that we are most frequently offended with low and inelegant expressions; and that the language, which was intended to be simple and natural, is found oftenest to degenerate into mere slovenliness and vulgarity”(412). To Jeffrey the intended natural language comes across as vulgar, inelegant, and offensive. The critic John Stoddart however, was one who did support the theory that simple language can enhance the authenticity and purity of poetic style. Stoddart had been assessing Wordsworth’s style for a longer period of time and notes, in his review in the British Critic of February 1801 that Wordsworth’s style had turned around and changed completely. Stoddart praised the “purity of expression” which Wordsworth had made his own. In an effort to ease others into an acceptance of Wordsworth’s theory Stoddart admits that the used style may come across as low language to those who are critical of what they read, however, it is undoubtedly more authentic than the style of poetic diction. “He [Wordsworth] has adopted a purity of expression, which, to the fastidious ear, may sometimes sound poor and low, but which is infinitely more correspondent with true feeling that what, by the courtesy of the day, is usually called

28 poetical language”(400 Lyrical Ballads Ed. Gamer & Porter). Stoddart thus agrees with Wordsworth’s idea that simple and natural language are a better choice for poetry writing than what was being called poetic diction. What had convinced Stoddart of the theories proposed by the Lyical Ballads was his experience with poetic diction, poetic language that is too blatant. “A great part of his argument would appear useless, had we not unhappily witnessed, in some striking instances, how much the public taste may be misled by affected pomp and false glitter of language”(402). With this statement Stoddart supports Wordsworth once more. He describes how poetic diction is a style of language that misleads the public. Public diction’s flamboyant nature, its ‘pomp’ and ‘glitter’, is what makes it beguiling. A statement made in an unsigned review of October 1799 in the British Critic may have inspired Stoddart. “It is not by pomp of words, but by the energy of thought, that sublimity is most successfully achieved; and we infinitely prefer the simplicity, even of the most unadorned tale, in this volume, to all the meretricious frippery”(79 Critical Heritage). For both critics, the stress lies on the style of language used, not what is being said. All in all, the Lyrical Ballads and Wordsworth’s distinct theory of poetry caused a lot of dust to rise up. Liked or disliked, they were the talk of the town. Charles Lamb noted, writing to Manning in February 1801, that the debate had become so heated that he had to be careful with his critique. “I had need to be cautious henceforward what opinion I give of the ‘Lyrical Ballads.’ All the North of England are in a turmoil”(100 Critical Heritage). Robert Southey foreshadows the importance of the Lyrical Ballads for posterity in a letter dated 22 December 1802. “I wish you would read the Lyrical Ballads of Wordsworth; some of them are faulty; but, indeed, I would risk my whole future fame on the assertion that they will one day be regarded as the finest poems in our language”(121 Critical Heritage). The genres of poetry and autobiography, as it was emerging in the Romantic period, appear to have rubbed off on each other quite a bit. In this case, it is mostly the new style of Romantic poetry proposed by Wordsworth of which the essential elements bear a striking resemblance to those of self-writing texts. A lot of overlap appears between the two in the sense that both forms relay a personal experience, the description of this experience should call up certain ideas and feelings in the reader, and the reader ought be able to relate to what they read. This can happen when a sympathetic bond is created between the reader and the text. A writer can ensure such a

29 sympathetic bond by making sure to relay relatable topics and by using simple, daily used language to describe it. Therefore, it may be said that simple language use was important for writing in general during the Romantic period.

3. Truth in Contemporary Text

A quick look into contemporary definitions and critique can aid a better understanding of the role of truth within present day discussions of autobiography in order to discuss truth in Romantic autobiographical texts. A contemporary tendency to look for truth and autobiographical elements in varying art forms sheds further light on the role of truthfulness in text today. Both will help gain a better understanding of where we are now, how far we may or may not have come, and shows that the current debate is rather repetitive of the Romantic era thoughts on self-writing in several ways. The genre makes its own rules and won’t be pinned down by imposing rules or definitions. The practice of autobiography keeps pushing the boundaries that prescription and analysis of the practice of self-writing attempt to lay down. However, autobiography proves to be a strongly fluid genre and it may be called a protean genre, because it is ever evolving. There are three texts of especial significance in the study of autobiography: Philippe Lejeune’s Autobiographical Pact, Paul de Man’s Autobiography as De- effacement, and Roy Pascal’s Design and Truth in Autobiography. These texts all address the issues and difficulties of defining autobiography and provide ideas on truth in relation to autobiography and the role truth plays within the understanding and interpretation of self-writing. A quick overview of the definitions and essential aspects of these theories lays bare the fact that there are still many different approaches to autobiography and hence a lack of consensus on a definition thereof. Lejeune’s main aim is to create a clear and understandable vocabulary to be used in discussing autobiography because, as he explains, the absence of one has led to problems within the discourse. He works towards a definition of autobiography by approaching it from the point of the reader. The resulting, and by now famous, definition offered by Lejeune states that autobiography is “Retrospective prose narrative written by a real person concerning his own existence, where the focus is his individual life, in particular the story of his personality”(4). According to Pascal autobiography is “based on personal

30 experience, chronological, and reflective”(5). He defines autobiography through a comparison with other forms of self-writing and by pointing out the differences between them. Pascal states that autobiography further differentiates itself from other forms of self-writing because of the direction of focus in the text. “In the autobiography proper, attention is focused on the self, in the memoir and reminiscence on others”(5). Pascal and Lejeune both argue that autobiography focuses on an individual’s life and that an autobiography reflects on that individual’s life. Still, a significant difference should not be overlooked, namely that Pascal’s definition allows for more room, in the sense that his definition relies on the pivotal idea that autobiography is “based on experience”. Pascal’s is a looser definition because he speaks about experience where Lejeune specifies that an autobiography should be about the writer’s own life. In that sense, Pascal’s ‘experience’ is a much more general term in contrast with Lejeune’s idea of what an autobiography should be. In contrast to Lejeune and Pascal, Paul de Man critiques existing definitions and points out areas for improvement rather than define autobiography on his own terms. De Man points out the, in his eyes, major problems concerning the concept of and approach to autobiography and explains his issue with existing definitions of the genre by stating that the “attempts at generic definition seem to founder in questions that are both pointless and unanswerable”(919). Thus, De Man does not agree with the approach that is taken in working towards a definition of autobiography. Extremely important to Lejeune’s understanding of autobiography is that “In order for there to be autobiography (and personal literature in general), the author, the narrator, and the protagonist must be identical”(5). This establishes the referential nature of the genre of autobiography, meaning that what is in the text is based on someone existing outside of the text, someone existing in reality. However, does this connection between text and reality on the basis of reference indicate anything about whether or not, according to Lejeune, the textual reference should mirror reality, hence be truthful in any sense? Seemingly, only the names require exact correspondence, an exact match in names presupposes a parallel in experience between author and protagonist, while this need not necessarily be the case. Lejeune continues his line of thought on this issue, he argues “In autobiography, it is indispensable that the referential pact be drawn up, and that it be kept; but it is not necessary that the result be on the order of strict resemblance. The referential pact can, according to the criteria of

31 the reader, be badly kept, without the referential value of the text disappearing”(22). Lejeune states that the result of the referential pact need not necessarily lead to an exact resemblance, but that it indeed should be the writer’s intention to create it. Despite the fact that Lejeune first argues that the result of the autobiographical pact need not create strict resemblance Lejeune also puts forth that a writer, by writing autobiography, submits his or her text to be tested on its account of truth. “As opposed to all forms of fiction, biography and autobiography are referential texts: […] they claim to provide information about a ‘reality’ exterior to the text, and so to submit to a test of verification”(22). On the one hand, the intention of the author should be to write what is true in accordance with what exists in reality; however, it is not an issue if strict resemblance happens to not be the outcome of that intention. Still, at the same time the resulting text will be scrutinized based on its verity. The main problem de Man has with questions of and approaches to autobiography is that they “are confining, in that they take for granted assumptions about autobiographical discourse that are in fact highly problematic”(919). De Man continues by questioning the possibility of defining autobiography at all, since the nature of autobiography makes such an endeavor a difficult and perhaps even impossible task. “Empirically as well as theoretically, autobiography lends itself poorly to generic definition; each specific instance seems to be an exception to the norm”(920). Currently, we have to deal with a multitude of genres or subgenres when dealing with the larger genre of self-writing. If every text dealing with construction of self and or relaying an account of one’s life, that does not fit existing definitions of autobiography, is categorized into a new subgenre we lose sight of the bigger picture. Other critics, such as Paul John Eakin, discuss autobiography from an angle more focused on the role of truth in autobiographical texts. Paul John Eakin lays a finger on the problematic nature of autobiography; he points out a distinction that has been made by both historians and literary critics. Namely, the distinction between two forms of writing that come together in autobiography; first of all, factual content, which Eakin refers to as biographical truth, and secondly, imaginative creation. Eakin blames writers of autobiography for the problems arising from this combination, which leads readers of autobiography to assume that autobiography is based on “verifiable facts”. His argument is that “autobiographical truth is not a fixed but an evolving content in an intricate process of self-discovery and self-creation, and, further, that the self that is the center of

32 all autobiographical narrative is necessarily a fictive structure”(3). If autobiographical truth is, as Eakin here argues, not fixed, it is indeed a difficult matter to pin down. According to Eakin, who based his argument on ideas of Edgar Allen Poe and Jean Jacques Rousseau, the essence of the problematical nature of autobiographical truth is precisely its undeterminable nature. “Poe and Rousseau are united in their view that the challenge posed by autobiographical truth is in essence a matter of volition, of having the courage to utter it, leaving unexamined the problematical nature of the truth to be told, the epistemological difficulty of what it is”(5). To have the courage to admit to this undeterminable nature of autobiographical truth, and thus to willingly let go of wanting to hash out this difficulty is a possible approach to autobiography. Therefore, Eakin’s approach wants to focus more on the process of identity formation in autobiography, believing that this approach would render the quest for truth unimportant because of the entailed fluidity of identity. “Instead, autobiography is better understood as a ceaseless process of identity formation in which new versions of the past evolve to meet the constantly changing requirements of the self in each successive present”(36). If identity formation is what autobiography essentially conveys, and if we agree that identity is fluid and subject to change, there is no one point in an autobiography at which the represented identity is most true. Another influential scholar in this discussion is George Gusdorf; his understanding of autobiography is focused on the value of autobiographical texts regardless of factuality and veracity. According to Gusdorf the value of autobiography is in no way related to fact or fiction. “The significance of autobiography should therefore be sought beyond truth and falsity, as those are conceived by simple common sense”(43). That does not mean a historian should not look for factual accounts in the text, but besides the possibility of offering an individual’s point of view of history, an autobiography is also a work of art and therefore may also be assessed in light of stylistic harmony. No matter whether the text is true or false, there is value in an autobiographical text regardless. “We may call it fiction or fraud, but its artistic value is real: there is a truth affirmed beyond the fraudulent itinerary and chronology, a truth of the man, images of himself and of the world”(43). Gusdorf argues that the truth of a person is in no way decidable on the basis of a chronological view of his life, what matters, what creates the worth of autobiography is the process of reflection. In accordance with Pascal who said that “Even if what they tell us is not factually true, or

33 only partly true, it always is true evidence of their personality”(1). To look for factual truths in an autobiography does not lead to an understanding of its relevance. Autobiographical texts must be approached in a different manner. Moreover, Gusdorf states that even if an autobiographer intends to be completely truthful, he will not be able to do so. Because the object of the writer is himself, there is no way in which he can be objective in the way a biographer could. “We must, therefore, introduce a kind of reversal of perspective and give up thinking about autobiography in the same way as we do an objective biography, […] it does not show us the individual seen from outside in his visible actions but the person in his inner privacy”(45). Thus, thinking of autobiography needs to undergo a change of perspective to be able to appreciate and realize the actual value of self-writing. Presently, there appears to be a desire to find autobiographical elements in many different art forms, accompanied by a tendency to look for truth. Readers today do not expect to come across fiction in autobiography; or rather the public do not want to come across it. This specific attitude towards autobiography becomes apparent from the ongoing scrutiny of autobiographical texts on a fact to fiction basis, in which any detection of fiction or fictionalized elements in an autobiography causes the public to distrust the author and disregard the entire text. Even though critics have argued that a completely truthful autobiography is impossible, writers of autobiographies containing fictional elements have been accused of lying. Readers want autobiographies to relay some sort of truth about the author and his life. There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon. First of all, the problem constitutes itself in the fact that readers want autobiography or autobiographical texts to be true. Out of this “wanting” arises a mode of reading in which we read for truth; we look for similarities between author and protagonist. Discovering a resemblance between the two gives some sort of pleasure, the sense of something accomplished, something proven. Secondly, according to Candace Lang “autobiography is indeed everywhere one cares to find it”(6). If a reader or critic wants, or strongly believes, a text to reveal something about its author, there is always a way in which a connection on autobiographical grounds can be drawn between a text and its author. However, the fact that we can find what Lejeune would call a ‘resemblance’ does not mean this should be used to construct any form of truth about the writer or his life.

34 The tendency of reading autobiographies or other genres of self-writing with a strong focus on fact and truth occurs both in cases where a text is clearly marketed as an autobiography or a memoir, by either stating the genre on the cover page or by expressions in subtexts, as well as with cases where there is no apparent steering towards an autobiographical reading of a text. Call to mind the autobiography A Million Little Pieces, a text relaying its protagonist’s struggles of overcoming his drug addiction, which eventually was marked as a fraud by the public. The text had initially been written as fiction, but in the end had been marketed as an autobiography in order to boost sales. The public was outraged, sparked on by the fact that the book had been on Oprah’s Book Club and James Frey, the author, had come on Oprah’s show to talk about his book. In January of the year two thousand and six the New York Times published an article titled “Author is Kicked Out of Oprah Winfrey’s Book Club”i relaying what had occurred on the Oprah Winfrey Show after a website called ‘The Smoking Gun’ had revealed that James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces was not a completely factual account of Frey’s actual life. The article quotes Oprah Winfrey confronting Frey with the apparent lies he had told her and her viewers. Interestingly enough, my copy of the novel, printed in 2004, about two years before the controversies broke out, in no way indicates that the book is supposed to be a memoir. The comments from papers and other critics printed on the cover however do speak of a memoir. A comment on the back by the Observer even labels it “non-fiction”. Granted, Frey did come on Oprah to talk about his life, which is a format and setting in which people are not used to, and do not expect to, encounter fiction. Does this mean it all comes down to expectation management? Such a factual desiring approach to autobiography does not allow fictional elements to exist within the text; for some reason readers want autobiography, memoirs, and other forms of self-writing to be truthful. Paul John Eakin states “We want autobiography to be true, we expect it to be true more or less […] In those cases when we are forced to recognize that an autobiography is only fiction, we may feel cheated of the promised encounter with biographical reality”(10). The fact that the readers of A Million Little Pieces felt cheated and had expected the text, and all the events relayed in it, to be factually true becomes especially clear when you take a look at the comments page on, for example, Amazon.com.ii A particular response on Amazon expressed the sentiment that expectations had not been met. “I feel if its all made up then why even finish reading the book”. It is clear that this specific reader had expected the novel to be

35 a non-fictional account of a person’s struggle with drug addiction and was disappointed to learn that the, as Eakin calls it, expected “encounter with biographical reality” failed to occur.iii Many of the comments describe a similar sentiment and it is interesting to notice how when people read autobiography or memoir and they discover fictional elements, those fictive imaginations immediately get stamped with the word ‘lie’. Not only does this tendency show itself within the spectrum of self-writing; within the medium of poetry the same issue has been seen to rear its head. Robert Pack starts off his article Lyric Narration with an anecdote from a poetry reading he had done, in which he describes how he once had a confrontation with a reader who had interpreted his poetry as a factual account of his own life. He describes how, after giving a public reading of one of his poems, a woman approached him to express her sympathy for the loss of his brother who, according to Pack’s poem, had died in an unfortunate hunting accident. “I apologized to her, explaining that I never had a brother, that I invented the brother for the sake of my poem”(1). The woman’s reaction is similar to the responses to the revelation of fictional elements in A Million Little Pieces. “’You mean you lied’, she said; ‘you took advantage of my sympathy’”(1). Again, fiction encountered where it had not been anticipated or expected is regarded as a flat-out lie. Even more so, the woman from Pack’s anecdote felt betrayed, as if her anticipated sympathetic response was taken advantage of for marketing purposes. More recently it has become evident that this ‘quest for truth’ tendency has bled into popular culture as well. At a Sundance film festival panel “The Power of Fiction” Lena Dunham and Mindy Kaling, both writers of a TV-series in which they themselves star as the main character, discuss responses to their work where, in the public’s understanding, fact and fiction seem to collide. In this case, the idea appears to arise out of the fact that physically Mindy Kaling and Lena Dunham are the same as their characters. In the case of The Mindy Project the first name of the writer and actor is the same as the main character. Where this is not the case with Girls the same tendency is noticeable. Lena Dunham remarked:

There’s a reason people have trouble differentiating between me and my character, Mindy and her character. We basically share a name; you guys share the same name. There are stylistic similarities. We have the same voice; we have the same face. But at the end of the day, I don’t think that

36 Larry David or Woody Allen or anyone else playing some version of them are walking around with a million people who think they know and

understand you on a deep and abiding level.2

The idea that such a precedent has not occurred with male actors and writers is an interesting point. However, for present purposes the most important idea to focus on is that people who watch these shows believe that by getting to know the characters they also gain a profound understanding of the creators. The popular idea is that both women portray themselves through their characters. While there is no claim to autobiographical truth, or any other form of truth, made by either The Mindy Project or Girls there is a tendency to equate actor with character, which extends itself into situations where the actor is held accountable for its character’s actions as well as statements. A good example of this is when in the first season of Girls the main character Hannah says that she thinks she is the voice of a generation the public assumed that Lena Dunham believed herself to be such a voice. In his introduction to Studies in Autobiography James Olney states that there had been a period of neglect in the study of autobiography and proposes an explanation for the inattention of the topic of autobiography within criticism that prevailed before the peak that started around the 1980’s. Olney does not doubt that there are many reasons that could possibly explain this lack of interest for the genre of autobiography, however he feels most strongly that the insurgent research in autobiography can be credited towards the changed attitude towards autobiography and its place within the literary realm. So the reason “that autobiography has received so much attention in the past few years is that literary historians and theorists have come to see autobiography as a distinct and distinguishable mode of literature”(xiv). However, this process of coming to see autobiography as a distinct mode was already going on in the Romantic era, thus long before 1980. Olney continues, stating “prior to the mid-1950’s autobiography was seen as little more than a special variety of biography”(xiii). Yes, Samuel Johnson viewed autobiography, what he called self-biography, as a form of biography. Isaac D’Israeli utilizes the same terminology in his Miscellanies. However, the fact that these critics had not felt the need for a strong terminological distinction does not take away the fact that

2 http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacelacob/lena-dunham-and-mindy-kaling-want-to-be- clear-that-theyre-no#.pwN2v1XyP

37 they distinguish between the two forms by stating differences and their preferences in their descriptions of both forms. Johnson for example makes a distinction on the basis of value of biography and self-biography. Treadwell states that there was an ongoing process of conceptual dissociation between autobiography and biography (16). Also, Eugene Stelzig argues that that it were the critics of Romantic period who started to differentiate between autobiography and biography. “It was, however, during the Romantic period that autobiography began to establish itself as a separate and distinct genre, and not simply a version or branch of biography (“self biography”), the prevailing view during the eighteenth century”(3 -4). Thus, the predominant idea in the Romantic period was to understand autobiography to be a form of biography, however, the process of differentiation started during that period as well. The question starts to arise whether, in those roughly two hundred years, our understanding of autobiography has made much progress at all, and if we were able to define this genre that seems to keep slipping through the critics’ fingers. Olney agrees that it is difficult to decide where to give autobiography a place on the shelf of literary genres. This difficulty arises from a lack of general rules the critic may use. “One never knows where or how to take hold of autobiography: there are simply no general rules available to the critic. Indeed, in many cases, […], it is only by an act of faith that one can sustain the claim or belief that it is autobiography that is being held”(3-4 Autobiography and Cultural Moment). Olney is among those critics who believe that there is no way in which critics have been able to take a hold of autobiography in a way of defining it. Are critics and readers thus, after all those attempts at a definition, left to their own gut feeling to decide whether or not a text is autobiographical or not? Critics, from the Romantic era up to those from the 1980’s autobiography hype, keep going through the same movements but hardly end up with perspectives that differ greatly those in the Romantic era. Treadwell’s discussion on the interplay between the practice, prescription, and analysis of autobiography in the Romantic era supports the idea that the genre’s inherent fluidity as the main reason for the apparent inability to define autobiography. He states that if someone would try to write a history of the development and understanding of autobiography he would have to take into account the autobiographies themselves as well as the secondary texts. Just as autobiography is not an autobiography if it does not contain both a description of the interior and exterior, so does a history of

38 autobiography need to include both practice and theory according to Treadwell. “The works themselves are inextricably interlinked with the reviewers and commentators: the gradual emergence of autobiography as a relatively distinct and uncontroversial category arises from the exchange between all these voices”(9). In the same way in which the practice of autobiography on its own is not representative for the development of the genre, so are prescriptive and analytical texts not able to define autobiography. “More importantly, prescriptive attitudes prove unable to evaluate – or even define – autobiographical writing. The genre emerges as a set of practices, a series of books, whose relationship to any formal or theoretical concept is always contentious”(31). The interplay of all these forces is what makes autobiography the fluid and ungraspable, and protean genre that it is, and likely will be. The prescriptive approaches from the Romantic era and the attempts at definition from the 1980’s surge in debate on autobiography are repetitive in their attempts to box up and label autobiography. There is still much debate about autobiography and there is still no consensus on a definition. Some critics, like De Man, have questioned whether it is at all possible to define autobiography. Prescriptive attitudes towards autobiography have proven to be incapable of containing the genre. As De Man said, current approaches to autobiography are confining. Because of the confining nature of approaches to autobiography the genre resist definition through its fluidity. A definition of autobiography is created, which sets boundaries and demarcations. Until a form of autobiography appears which poses an exception, and thereby questions the boundaries of, and changes, the autobiography landscape once more. Eakin believes that autobiography’s undeterminable nature, in other words the fluid and protean nature of autobiography, is the reason for the problems of autobiographical truth. The issues with autobiographical truth can be seen to take form in the current tendency to read for autobiographical truth, and the wish to find autobiography in almost everything we read. The critically Romantic attitudes towards truthfulness and alteration show that truthfulness was believed to be an essential aspect of autobiography. Similarly, the critics disapproved of alteration, except for those situations in which alteration had to be applied in order to maintain the veil between private and publically acceptable personal details. A successful and proper Romantic autobiography could be achieved by avoiding self-love, egotism, sharing too much private details, and the use of boastful

39 language. Autobiographers should make sure to use simple language and relatable topics in order to establish a sympathetic link between reader and text. This is true for both autobiography and poetry, two genres that have shown to have a strong influence on each other. What was deemed appropriate for writing about personal experiences in poetry in the Romantic era, strongly rubbed off on prescriptive attitudes towards autobiography during that time. The movement set in motion by Wordsworth’s theory concerning a more realistic and straightforward style of writing poetry was a reaction to the increase in authors and poets writing from personal experience and an individual’s point of view. Ever since its conception autobiography has pushed boundaries and rejected prescription and definition. The fluidity of the genre of autobiography is an explanation for the contemporary tendency to look for autobiography in a great variety of genres and art forms.

40 i http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/books/27oprah.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

ii http://www.amazon.com/Million-Little-Pieces-James- Frey/dp/0307276902/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396192391&sr=1- 1&keywords=a+million+little+pieces iii I must add here that I focused on the negative comments and that there are many other readers who thoroughly enjoyed the book and did not mind that some parts of the story had been embellished and/or that fictional elements had been added.

Works Cited

Coleridge, S.T. Coleridge’s Poetry and Prose: authoritative texts criticism. Ed. Nicholas Halmi, Paul Magnuson, Raimonda Modiano. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. Coleridge, S.T. The Major Works including Biographia Literaria. Ed. H.J. Jackson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor & Wordsworth, William. Lyrical Ballads 1798 and 1800. Ed. Michael Gamer and Dahlia Porter. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2008. D’Israeli, Isaac. Miscellanies or, Literary Recreations London: printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies 1796 De Man, Paul. “Autobiography as De-facement”. MLN 94.5 (1979): 919-930. Eakin, Paul John. Fictions in Autobiography: Studies in the Art of Self-invention. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. Foster, John, 1770-1843. Essays, In a Series of Letters, On the Following Subjects: On Man's Writing Memoirs of Himself, 1826. Gusdorf, George. “Conditions and Limits of Autobiography”. Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical. Ed. James Olney. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980, (28 – 48). Hopkins, Brooke. “Reading, and Believing in, Autobiography. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 64:1 (Spring 1981), 93 – 111. Johnson, Samuel. Idler. no 84, November 24, 1759 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12050/12050-8.txt Johnson, Samuel. Rambler. no. 60 October 13, 1750 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43656/43656-h/43656-h.htm Lang, Candace. "Autobiography in the Aftermath of Romanticism." (1982): 2-16. Lejeune, Philippe. "The autobiographical pact." On Autobiography (1989): 3-30. Olney, James. “Autobiography and the Cultural Moment: A thematic, Historical, and Bibliographical Introduction”. Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical. Ed. James Olney. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980 (3 – 27). Olney, James. Studies in Autobiography. Ed. James Olney. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Pack, Robert. "Lyric Narration: The Chameleon Poet." The Hudson Review 37.1 (1984): 54-70. Pascal, Roy. “What is an Autobiography?”Design and Truth in Autobiography. Cambridge: Harvard UP,1960. Stelzig, Eugene L., ed. Romantic autobiography in England. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009. Treadwell, James. Autobiographical Writing and British Literature 1783 – 1834. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Wordsworth, William. “The Preface”. Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: Norton, 2001. (561 – 576) Wordsworth, William & Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Wordsworth and Coleridge Lyrical Ballads. Ed. R.L. Brett and A.R. Jones. London: Routledge, 2005. Woof, Robert. Ed. The Critical Heritage: William Wordsworth volume I 1793 – 1820. London: Routledge, 2001.