Literary criticism pdf download

Ruthven looks at the impact of Marxism, structuralism, and post-structuralism on feminist critical practice. Author : Stanley E. This volume continues the major work published by the JSNT Supplement Series in the area of Greek linguistics of the New Testament, and explores what the editors believe are crucial phases in the application of linguistics to New Testament Greek.

The first half of the volume includes essays on such topics as linguistics and literary criticism, linguistics and historical criticism, and linguistics and rhetoric. The second half includes essays dealing with the relations and uses of individual words, but ranges from oral composition to the value of word frequency in determining authorship. Some of these essays review established models of research; others propose new models and criteria of linguistic analysis.

Now in its third edition, Feminist Literary Theory remains the most comprehensive, single volume introduction to a vital and diverse field Fully revised and updated to reflect changes in the field over the last decade Includes extracts from all the major critics, critical approaches and theoretical positions in contemporary feminist literary studies Features a new section, Writing 'Glocal', which covers feminism's dialogue with postcolonial, global and spatial studies Revised chapter introductions provide readers with helpful contextual information while extensive notes offer recommendations for further reading.

Looks at post-war American drama by women, bridging the gap between theatrical theory and feminist theory. The principle aim of this book is to explore the relationship between contemporary literary theory and analytic philosophy. The volume addresses this issue in two ways: first, through four exchanges between, on the one hand, proponents of avant-garde literary theory and, on the other, proponents of analytic philosophy or of related literary critical positions ; and second, through three cross-disciplinary essays on the relationship in question.

Central topics in the volume include Self, Ethics, Interpretation, Language and characterisations of 'analytic' and 'continental' philosophy. Skip carousel. Carousel Previous. Carousel Next. What is Scribd? Did you find this document useful? Is this content inappropriate? Report this Document. Flag for inappropriate content. Download now. Literary Criticism Notes. Related titles. Carousel Previous Carousel Next.

Jump to Page. Search inside document. Another one… "Literary criticism is the evaluation of literary works. Eight Paradigms … 1. The Author Beyond the Real Other 3. There are so many possible answers … What does this literary work mean? Types of Sociological Criticism Sociological theory is so broad that it can be subdivided in many different categories. Bhagyalaxmi Das.

Angel Rose Trocio. Leonard Patrick Faunillan Bayno. Ian Giorgiana. Geb Galagala. Bella Name. Robson R. Mirza Haider Reza. Jade Angelo Gascon. Agnibesh Chakrabarti. Jelena Abula. Ed Rechshield Abatayo. Sofia Azevedo. Sibanda Mqondisi. Danna Aguirre. Gellamie Sibonghanoy. RaRe TV. Amine Salim. Neither philosophies nor historian could have achieved much popularity if they had not employed poetic methods and modes of writing. Poets found even in barbarous nations.

In Turkey there are no writers except theologians and poets. Even among Red Indians, who may be considered most barbarous and primitive and have not acquired art of writing, there are poets who make songs describing past deeds of their ancestors and the qualities of their Gods. The poet is a Prophet and a Maker. This is a heavenly title bestowed upon the poet. Poetry is considered as divine knowledge.

The Psalms of King David in the old Testament constitutes a divine poem. The Greeks called the writer of poetry a poet. The Poet not tied to the things and objects existing in Nature. For instance, Astromer has solar system arithmetic and study things measurable. A grammarian concerns himself with the rules of speech. Only the poet refuses to be tied to things, objects already existing in nature. Poet builds up another nature, either by making things better than natural things or by creating things which never existed in nature.

All things and men created by poets are excellent in many respects. The imaginary things or persons created by poets are not unreal or unconvincing like castles which are built in the air.

On the contrary, the creations of poet poses a permanent appeal. Poetry an Art of Invitation, intended to teach and to delight. Three kinds of poetry; we find diine poetry in old Testament and Bible. Poetry which deals with philosophical matters which we find in Virgil and Lucretius. However this second type suffers from disadvantage. This poetry remains confined to the matters of actual facts and subjects.

It is the third kind of poetry which is true poetry. These poets borrow nothing from what is happening or what has happened or what will happen.

There is no restrictions on choice of subject. The only restraint on them is that which may be imposed by their own good taste. The poetry written by these poets provides such delight that readers feel a strong desire to acquire the quality of goodness.

That being so, it is foolish to criticise or condemn these poets. Some of these kinds are to be classified according to matter and some by the kind of meter in which they are written. A large majority of poets have clothed their poetic work in the metrical kind of writing; that is why it is called verse. However, it is to be noted that verse or meter is only an ornament, an adornment. The distinctive mark of poetry is that it offers concrete pictures which afford delight as well as instruction.

Poetry leads Human Beings to Virtuous Actions: Natural science, social science are forms of learning and are directed to the highest end which is knowledge of his own self by man considered as moral and social being.

But these are subordinate compared to poetry. The final end of all earthly learning is virtuous action and poetry stands supreme. The claims of Philosophers, the Historian and the Lawyer: Philosopher claims that he can best tell difference between virtue and vice, how best to govern society and family. Historian claims that moral philosopher teaches only abstractions, while he teaches people to follow the virtuous examples of those who lived in the past. As for lawyer, he is concerned only with limited task of enforcing justice.

The merit if a poet: He is both the philosopher and the historian. He combines percepts and concrete, general notion and the particular example. He is superior in that he describes both virtue and vice.

Passions of mankind are portrayed by poets and dramatists more convincingly and vividly than accounts and definitions. Historian cannot deviate from fact. This is his handicap. History deals with particular poetry deals with universal. Poet deals with facts on his own terms. Poetry depicts tyrants being subjected to indescribable misery, while history must show unjust and cruel men getting on well in life.

Thus poetry occupied higher position than history, because it encourages the reader to emulate the example of the just and good men and discourages them from following the example of the cruel and evil men. Nobody can receive any moral teaching if his mind is not first moved by the desire to be taught. Teaching has no value if it does not movea man to act upon the lesson. It is not only knowing that is important but acting upon the knowledge which one has acquired.

The poet does not offer abstract and difficult definitions. The poet wins the mind of the readers from inert state or wickedness to virtue by offering to him all possible attractions.

Its like a sugar coated pill. In short, poetry with its delightful teaching has the power to instil virtue among human beings. The merits of various forms of poetry: Pastoral poetry serves a noble purpose by depicting the misery of people under cruel rulers and by depicting the blessedness which the lowest people can derie from goodness of those who occupy high positions.

It is unfair to condemn elegiac poetry which arouses pity in us by lamenting the weakness of mankind and the wretchedness of the world. Satirical poetry serves excellent purpose by making men laugh at their own follies. Comedy enables us to perceive the ugliness of evil and therefore to appreciate the beauty of virtue. Tragedy moves human heart. Rhyme and Verse lend charm to poetry: A poet may write poetry without rhyme and verse and a man may write in verse without genuine poetry.

Rhyme and verse add charm and are an aid to memory. Some objections to poetry answered: One objection is that a man can better spend his time in pursuit of knowledge than reading poetry. Now, no knowledge is so good as that which can teach virtue and acquire virtue as powerfully as poetry can. Second objection is that poetry is the mother of all lies. The fact is that the poet is the least liar.

Astronomer, physician, cartographer may arrie at wrong conclusions; but poet never lies because he does not make assertive conclusions. He does not tell his readers what is and what is not. He only tells them what should be what should not be. Aesop never claimed that animals speak and performed these actions. Aesop cannot be accused of having told lies.

These stories are taken symbolic or allegoric sense. Yet another objection to poetry is that the poet gives false or imaginary names to his characters. This charge is also false. The object of poet naming is not to build history but merely to produce a more vivid impression upon the mind of the readers.

Another objection to poetry is that poetry corrupts the minds of readers by teaching them lustful love and wanton sinfulness. It is said eligic poetry is always lamenting the absence of mistress, lyrical poetry is voluptuous, even heroic poetry depicts lustful love as something admirable. The fact is otherwise. Love is something beautiful and admirable. Love and beauty are not a fault. The art of poetry canot be censured because of aberrations of some poets. When misused, even medicine, law can be dangerous.

Poetry, an incentive for soldiers and warriors: One of the charges against poetry is it weakens human beings, makes them effininate. In fact, while poetry does encourage a contemplative and imaginative life, it encourages men to perform brave deeds.

The fact is he was himself most poetic of all philosophers. He had picked up all sweetness of poetry and true points of poetry. View that he was opposed to poetry is based on sheer misunderstanding. In fact his ideal republic was itself not very commendable because this republic allowed the sharing of women by men thus permitting man to have any woman he liked.

Plato condemned not poetry but the misuse of poetry. He found poets of his time spread wrong opinions about Gods. The poets of his time did not invent Gods. Poets were not responsible for attributing low passions to the Gods. The poets simply accepted the idea prevalent. What he wanted was to drive away wrong notions about Gods which the poets merely repeated in their poems on the basis of the opinions which were in current among the people.

In fact Plato in one of his dialogues, gives high praise to the poetry. In Ion, Plato attributed the writing poetry to divine inspiration. The state of poetry and poets in England: Inferior poets writing and publishing poetry in England. In the past the poets have flourished. Reputation had fallen. Inferior poets were disgracing muse. A natural genious of poetry alone is not enough. Proper training is necessary. Even a gifted poet needs art and technique; good role models in front and sustained practice.

English poets write as if they knew everything, while in fact that the poems are not products of their knowledge. Specimens of good poetry are Chauce in Troilus and Cressida, but even Chauce had his limitations. Spencer, inspite of rustic, barbaric obsolete words, had much of good poetry.

Unities of place and time were violated in English drama. The mingling of comic and tragic elements is another defect. The comic element plays discordant effect. A serious play containing comic element would neither give rise to the feeling og admiration and pity which a true tragedy should produce; nor provide the right kind of mirth which comedy should provide.

This mongrel tragic comedy is surely to be deplored. In English plays of present, the comic portion in tragedy represents only indecency or vulgarity. The ancient dramatists too mingled comic with tragic elements in few cases, but they did not do it in clumsy manner. The effect which comedy should aim at: The English dramatist think mistakenly that delight and laughter are one and the same thing, They think that delight cannot be without laughter.

They are wrong. Comedy should also provide delightful instruction, The comic dramatist should arouse laughter by depicting such characters as fussy courtier, a cowardly fellow threatening a brave man, a pompous and ignorant school master, a traveller who has been corrupted by his travel.

English lyric poetry is unsatisfactory. Faults of style: Affected and inflected diction and far fetched words. Clumsy absurd alliterations, metaphors borrowed from all kinds and sources. The potentiallties of the English language: Some people object to foreign words. English language is getting enriched. English has its own grammar. English has tremendous potential to express thoughts and ideas of mind sweetly and appropriately.

Her methods of verification and rhyme produce sweetness as well as dignity in writing. Indifference to poetry, the sign of a dull witted man. We are reminded of a Sanskrit, a man without poetry music and art is a bull without horns. It is not merely a compilation or summary of classical and Italian doctrine.

Sidney possesses originality and resources in order to set forth ultimately his own conception of poetry. Conclusions he arrives at are his own. They are the result of his wide reading and personal reflections. Plato plays important role sapping his views, owing to affinity of spirit.

To him poetry was a natural human activity. Poetry enables man to sing of beauty and truth. Poet longs for a transformed world thus nurturing in it what is good and noble. In a sense it is criticism of life. He faced traditional objections boldly. He restored to poetry something of its prestige and meaning, brought enlightenment and reassurance to his own generation.

His originality is apparent in manner of presentation too. We find freshness and vigour characteristics of Sidney. He wrote for courtly circles and was removed from pedestrian style of his contemporary pamplets. Nowhere we finds such a blend of dignity and humour, of sincerity and irony, of controlled enthusiasm and racy colloquialism, or again that unstudied simplicity and grace which everywhere pervade the work.

It was a realistic presentation of his abstract theme in concrete terms. It is a first piece of English criticism. It is literature in itself a worthy prelude to what was to follow. Sidney shows that poetry does not deserve this scorn. Poetry instructs that its purpose is moral and it is consistent with religion. He weeds out poetry which does not deserve the name. Sidney pays high tributes to poets. He shows that poets have not only been scientists, historians, philosophers, but that the calling of poetry is one which has never failed to command the highest admiration.

One from Aristotle and from Horace. Aristotle makes poetry a meeting point of philosophy, history and giving it a highest palm after scriptures. Sidney applies scaligerian and Horarian norms to English poetry. He protests against the slack unities of academic tragedies excepting Gorbodue and the clatter of wooden swords in battle endings.

His respect for Spencer and Chaucer is note worthy. Sidney provides moral support to English poetry especially in his second definition of poetry is such as to make moral content of poetry that is correct placement of virtue and vice a part of its essential requirement. His first definition names the purpose of poetry explicitly as teaching. At a latter stage considering platonic objections he reasons about moral requirement and how to reconcile it with start fact that much fine poetry is immoral.

Here Sidney says something different. He could have said in earlier definition that immoral poetry was no poetry at all. However his argument cannot be dismissed lightly. Whatsoever being abused does harm and being rightly used receives title. Sidney discussed the superiority of poetry over philosophy, history. He first makes remark that versing does not make a poet.

A verifier is not a poet and a poet is not necessarily a verifier. Pastoral poetry showed the misery of people under hard lords or revening soldiers. Elegiac would move rather pity than blame. Comedy is an imitation of common errors of our life which he represents in the most ridiculous and scornful sort. The excellent tragedy opens wounds and shows ulcers that are covered. The lyric gives praise the reward of virtue to virtuous acts. Aidney was the first to start judicial criticism in England.

Gosson as a puritan mercilessly attacked poets and their art. Sidney like a true knight showed his greatest chivalry in defending mistress poetry. His judicial attitude in criticism paved way for better understanding and appreciation of imaginative literature. A judicial critic will judge things according to the laws set down by the ancients. He expanded the horizons of law and make amendments in order to fit in with time. In this he is liberal.

His views were warmly accepted by later generation. Sidney as a critic was both a classicist and a romanticist. Like classicist he also believed in the order of beauty, but he challenged some of the rules. He was a disciple of ancient but not a slave.

He could agree with them and also disagree but not violently. He always wanted a compromise. Liberalism, nobility and gentleness were his marks. He felt literature was to move and uplift.

He was not pedantic critic but creative. Poetry to him was beauty and truth. It taught delightfully. Very politely and respectfully he set aside rules. When poetry had fallen from high pedestal to be a laughing stock of children, he raised to the occasion. The puritans had called poetry a nurse of abuse and wanted to close the theatres and banish poetry. Sidney took the cause and made out a strong case on the grounds of divinity, its prophetic nature, its cultural values, its universal appeal, its elevating power and alluring methods.

His percepts were mostly classical and Italian, but he used them after suitable changes. He wrote with his heart. All qualities of his writings are hardly to be met with his predecessors and contemporary. He shows himself able as Gosson had been able to take a wide and catholic instead of peddling view of morality.

He was spiritual descendent of Plato who wanted poetry of didactic purpose. Poetry aimed at the purification of wit, enriching memory, enabling of judgement and enlarging of conceit. Sidney laid down the foundation of an appreciative, interpretative, impressionistic and judicial criticism. Sidney is original not in theory and subject matter alone but also in style. It has colloquial ease blended with dignity. It is the final verdict of an epoch.

Halliday He wrote a number of critical essays on him in the Rambler. Even in the Dictionary Shakespeare is found to be the most quoted author. The first volume itself is said to contain about quotations from Shakespeare. The justification for a new edition and the primary duties of an editor are set forth in clear terms. He promised to bring out his edition on or before Christmas But after much pressure from his friends, the set of eight volumes were published in October In his elucidation of difficult passages, in his factual notes and appreciative or adverse comments, Johnson has always something pertinent to say.

His experience as the maker of a dictionary had made him an adept in concise and accurate explanation, and his fundamental commonsense took him directly to the root of the problem and enabled him to examine it without prejudice and explain it without pedantry.

Lastly, they have a human and literary interest of their own. But he deals with Shakespeare as a man and as a writer in general and not with any of his plays in particular. An author who can be shown to satisfy this condition can alone be eligible for rational appreciation and esteem.

His person act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated. In writing of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species. Whereas the other playwrights portray only love. Shakespeare deals with all the emotions.

Although his characters are types, they are clearly distinguished. They are not exaggerated in their presentation. Even where the agency is supernatural the dialogue is level with life. The first criticism is that Shakespeare has violated the doctrine of decorum. His Romans are not sufficiently Roman and his Kings are more men than Kings. It is quite intentional. It is not very careful of distinctions super induced and adventitious.

His story requires Romans or Kings but he thinks only on men. When he trusts to his native intelligence he is totally free from the literary prejudices of his contemporaries. Shakespeare is censured for mixing comic and tragic sense in his play. The end of writing is to instruct; the end of poetry is to instruct by pleasing.

Moreover when Shakespeare was engaged in writing there were no rules to follow, no examples to imitate, and no public judgment to correct or restrain him. So he indulged his natural disposition. Incidentally, Johnson makes some comments on this disposition Shakespeare, we are told, was drawn to comedy by his nature and so his comedies are greater than his tragedies. His tragedy seems to be skill, his comedy to be instinct. Is there labouring after effect in Macbeth or King Lear? Does he not have a profound tragic sense?

Lastly his style also exhibits the general qualities which prevent it from becoming obsolete. His characters are praised as natural. Though their sentiments are sometimes forced and their actions improbable.

With these remarks, Johnson turns to examine the defects of Shakespeare. It is said that Johnson cannot understand a moral judgment unless it is directly stated, and that he is not sensitive to moral judgments which are enacted in artistic terms. Do you agree? The plots Johnson goes on, are often loosely constructed and in many plays the ending are poorly devised.

There are occasional anachronisms like Hector quoting Artistotle and the loves of the Greek These us combined with the gothic mythologies faires. In his comedies the jests are sometimes too gross and his gentlemen and ladies show want of delicacy. In tragedy, the effusions of passion are at times mean, tedious and obscure, and she seems to be straining his faculties. In narration he shows a disproportionate pomp of diction and becomes circumlocutory and cumbersome.

His declamatory and set speeches are commonly cold and weak. When entangled now and then in an unwieldy sentiment he leaves it to the reader to extricate himself from it. He employs conceits and puns even in serious passages. His is a dramatic use of language. He does not have one style, he has many and they are one in character.

The defence is a fine exposition of dramatic illusion and a bold criticism of the neo-classical doctrine of verisimilitude. The critics hold it impossible that an action of months or years can be possibly believed to pass in three hours…….. From the narrow limitation of time necessarily arises the contraction of place.

The spectator, who knows that he saw the first act at Alexandria, cannot suppose that he sees the next Rome……. In so short a time.

It is false, that any representation is mistaken for reality; that any dramatic fable in its materiality was ever credible, or for a single moment, was ever credited.

There is no reason, why a mind thus wandering in ecstasy should count the clock, or why an hour should not be a century in that calenture of the brains that can make the stage a field. They are always to be sacrificed to the nobler beauties of variety and instruction. Though he might have had no regular education, he absorbed knowledge from the prevailing atmosphere of Renaissance learning and the English translations of classical works.

He found the English stage in a state of the utmost rudeness; no essays either in tragedy or comedy had appeared…. Neither character nor dialogue was yet understood. Shakespeare may be truly said to have introduced them both amongst us, and in some of his happier scenes to have carried them both to the utmost height.

So he made no collection of them nor rescued those which had been badly published. Johnson mentions the various defects of these texts. Shakespeare himself is responsible for some of them. Johnson reviews their work and gives a summary of their achievement. N Smith He defends Rowe who has been blamed for not performing what he did not promise. His treatment of Theobald is felt to be some what unfair.

He collated the texts carefully. He restored many of the reading of the First Folio and introduced some from the Quartos. He was the first to be convinced that the First Folio was superior to the second and was alone authoritative. As I practised conjecture more, I learned to trust it less. His ear us dull and his physical myopia extends to the critical field also. The sense of mystery which Shakespeare is tiring to unveil escapes his notice and his poetry packed with meanings irritates him.

Some of these charges may be assented to, but majority of them appear to be unjust to an impartial reader of the Preface and the other writings of Johnson belonged to the neoclassical tradition, but he was by nature too independent to be the blind follower of any school or tradition.

He was loyal to that tradition, but not at the cost of his own experience of life and letters. His defence of Shakespeare for violating those cornerstones of neo-classical criticism, the principles of decorum and the three unities, is a decisive answer to his critics. The chief offence of Johnson was that he wrote and spoke of Shakespeare as one man may fitly speak of another and had dared to judge him as one man may fitly judge another.

He that claims, either in him or for another, the honors of perfection will surely, injure the reputation which he designs to assist. Of the defects which Johnson has pointed out in Shakespeare, it is not possible to agree with them. Johnson could not come to terms with it but his description of it is vivid and factual, not blurred or clouded by this dislike.

He does, it is true, hold too many of its commonplaces and share most of its tastes. But he differs clearly from the neo-classical creed on some important issues. In him certain of its elements have over grown all others and led to consequences which are destructive of its very essence. Johnson is, of course, no romanticist or even unconscious forerunner of romanticism: he is rather one of the first great critics who has almost ceased to understand the nature of art, and who in central passages, treats art as life.

He has lost faith in art as the classicists understood it and has not found the romantic faith. He paves the way for a view which makes art really superfluous, a mere vehicle for the communication of moral or psychological truth.

Art is no longer judged as art but as piece or slice of life. His early education in the grammar school at Hawkshed was arranged by his uncle. He went to St. He took a tour of continent. He was impressed by the French revolution. The French revolution made one crisis in his mental history. He emerged from it all his greatness intact. His close association with Coleridge bore fruit of the Lyrical Ballads first published in It indicates daring departure from established traditions of 18th century poetry and heralds a new era in poetry.

In second edition was published, revised enlarged editions appeared in , and After he gradually lost interest in the idea of progress and we see decline in his powers poetical. Wordsworth became poet Laureat in He breathed his last in Thus task is not one of revolution new order. And he, again like Eliot, was quite aware that the introduction of the really new work of art of modified the whole existing order and that it compels us to attempt a fresh evaluation of all works of literature.

The reading public that Wordsworth tried to influence was one that had too fondly taken to the established literary convention of the 18th century. Ordinary peasants were not to be called by their English names it was, they thought, not quite proper in poetry: they were to be called Daman or Strephon.

Inversions were preferred even when the metre would have permitted the natural order of words, and personifications abounded. The poetry they were addicted it was in brief, affected unnatural and its language far removed from the spoken idiom.

It was such a reading public that Wordsworth had to educate and enlighten, regarding the true nature of poetry and its language. But more was to follow and form the poetical traditions of the 18th century. In this preface, however, Wordsworth was content to say that a majority of his poems were to be considered as experiments…… written chiefly with a view to ascertain how far the language of conversation in the middle and lower classes of society is adopted to the purposes of poetic pleasure.

There is one more point to be noticed here and that there has been a shift of interest from Reason to Imagination. While explaining why he is going back to common life both for the subject and manner of his poetry, Wordsworth brings in a fresh idea which is as much characteristic of his poetry as that of his generation. He says : Humble and rustic life was generally chosen, because in that condition the essential passions of the heart find a better soil in which they can attain their maturity…………..

Preferring as he does the humble and rustic life, he prefers even more its language. The oral turn that is given here is again, new. Although Wordsworth is a romantic he is not the unthinking poet who believes in a simple theory of inspiration. One of the common devices of style namely, Personification of abstract ideas he utterly rejects and says that he wants to interest the reader by keeping him in the company of the very language of men. It is easy for Wordsworth to move from his plea for language of men to the plea for a natural, prose order of words in poetry.

His plea rests of course, on his conviction as well as on his observation of the style of his great predecessors. In S spite of this to Wordsworth the poet is essentially a man who tries to approximate — only to approximate — to the language men really use when they are under the actual pressure of passion. Wordsworth is only too conscious of the shadow that falls between words and feelings and therefore to him, the poet is no superman.

Poetry is the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge it is the impassioned experience which is in the countenance of all science……… He is the rock of defence of human nature ….. He binds together by passion and knowledge the vast empire of human society, as it is spread over all time…….

Wordsworth does not object to the use of metre in poetry because it is regular and uniform obeys certain fixed laws known to the poet and the reader and helps heighten pleasure whereas poetic diction is arbitrary and subject to infinite individual caprices.

Metre by its regularity, checks excitement and sees that there is in the reader an overbalance of pleasure. Contact with natural beauty does not turn peasants into poets, nor does it necessarily improve their character. Finally, Wordsworth is at his best when he forgets his theories and speaks in his own natural tones avoiding outworn conventions. Wordsworth, there is no need to say is a great poet who made the perilous adventure with marked success.

Here he tried to give an exact notion of the sense in which the phrase poetic diction has been used. He says that the earliest poets wrote from passion excited by real events and that their language was naturally daring and figurative. The poets with claims to genius and authority. What was with them a super addition became with the later poets a symbol of their profession. This language was received as a natural language. Wordsworth rejects this unnatural poetic diction because it unnecessarily exalts the character of poet and deprives him of his natural human qualities And so we find Wordsworth moving towards a natural language , a language really used by men.

To him poetic diction is not true to nature.