{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03329506314580941, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006314580941446613, 'mean_word_length': 5.361313868613139, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coleridge's Idea of Wordsworth as Philosopher Poet by David D. Joplin (review)

Much scholarship on the poetry ofWilliam Wordsworth has focused on the interaction between nature and the poet and illustrating the growth of the poet's mind. While a few studies, namely John Hodgson's Wordsworth's Philosophical Poetry 17971 81 4 and Alan Grab's The PhilosophicMind, place Wordsworth's work in a philosophical tradition, the critical trend has been to look at the development of the poet through a psychological lens. In addition, scholars have written an extensive body of criticism discussing the influence of Samuel Taylor Coleridge on Wordsworth. Working in opposition to this trend, David D. Joplin in his work Coleridge's Idea ofWordsworth as a Phihsopher Poet takes an onto-epistemological approach that "records a metaphysical growth . . . apart from personal biography" (7) and develops a system of ideas from Coleridge's thought and applies it to Wordsworth's poetry. Drawing on Owen Barfield's epistemology, Joplin illustrates how "Coleridge's dynamic philosophy provides the necessary 'system' with which to untangle the often confusing expression ofWordsworth's 'philosophy'" (16). At first glance, Joplin's approach may appear to be outdated; yet what he has succeeded in doing is offering a complex, thorough reading ofWordsworth's poetry that enhances not only the reader's understanding ofWordsworth's achievement as a "philosopher poet" but also brings clarity and an organic consistency to Coleridge's thought. He connects his views of Coleridge's philosophy to more current work on archetypal psychology and mythology by Mircea Eliade and Erich Neumann. In this way, he places his Barfieldean critical approach in a rich con-