Kubla Khan, Samuel Taylor Coleridge - Irene H. Chayes (essay date 1966)
Irene H. Chayes (essay date 1966)
SOURCE: Chayes, Irene H. “‘Kubla Khan’ and the Creative Process.” Studies in Romanticism 6, no. 1 (autumn 1966): 1-21.
[In the following essay, Chayes interprets “Kubla Khan” as one of Coleridge's most significant early statements on the process of poetic creation.]
In the evolution of “Kubla Khan” criticism over the past two generations,1 the most noteworthy change has been the quiet downgrading of the famous prefatory note in prose which since 1816 has accompanied the standard published text and has enormously influenced the way the poem has been understood. Since the discovery of the Crewe MS. and a much simpler, factual version of the note,2 the tendency has been to dismiss the later version and the elaborate story it tells as one more example of Coleridge's “self-justifying memory” in the face of accumulating unfinished projects.3 This may be as...
[The entire page is 9540 words long]
Join eNotes
Over 3,500 study guides, question and answer forums, literature criticism, reference content, and much more!
Navigate
- Introduction
- Principal Works
-
Criticism
- Augustan Review (review date 1816)
- Scourge and Satirist (review date 1816)
- Thomas Moore (review date 1816)
- Monthly Review (review date 1817)
- John Livingston Lowes (essay date 1927)
- Harold Bloom (essay date 1961)
- Richard Gerber (essay date 1963)
- Irene H. Chayes (essay date 1966)
- George G. Watson (essay date 1966)
- Kenneth Burke (essay date 1966)
- Charles I. Patterson Jr. (essay date 1974)
- Richard Hoffpauir (essay date 1976)
- Timothy Bahti (essay date 1981)
- John Beer (essay date 1985)
- Ken Frieden (essay date 1985)
- Stefan Ball (essay date 2001)
- Further Reading
- Copyright
