Talk:The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Gloss

Does anyone have any insight into why Coleridge added the gloss? I asked my high school aged brother to read the poem and even he could understand what the poem is saying without the gloss. Certainly the Romanitc Era readers would not have needed the gloss to comprehend Coleridge's poem. The only explanation that I can come up with is that Coleridge is being sarcastic, basically insulting the intellect of his readers. Any commentary on this question, or perhaps links to where I can find more information on it would be helpful.

-his editors (or his friends) thought that the text wouldn't be understood without commentary, so Coleridge reluctantly put them in. (got from the intro of penguin collection of coleridge poems; dont have exact stuff on me atm though. And despite it being the romanitc era, the language Coleridge uses was still archaic; hence believed to be confusing (i.e. 'rime' and 'kirk')

What is the difference between the two versions linked to? --Phil | Talk 16:15, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

There are substantial differences between the early and later versions of the Rime. The early version is more "Gothic" and a bit more graphic in parts and is only the poem itself. The later version is a bit more polished and also includes the prose glosses in the margins. The later version that is linked to (at Univ. Virginia) includes links (within the poem) to the older version where it differs substantially. Both versions are interesting to anyone who's interested in the development of the poem and/or the poet. --Marj 18:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Coleridge included the glosses to add to the dramatic effect of the poem, and to perhaps analyse and interpret the main text. The glosses, it should be noted, present the poem in a religious context. By Grammar Girl and Text Trooper

I'm of the opinion that Coleridge uses the marginalia, that is so often heavy-handed and of suspicious credence, to draw our attention to the limitations in over-simple 'moral' approaches to the poem. That's my opinion, at least. Bosola, 22.5.2007

Iron Maiden

Is there any reason why Iron Maiden, who I will concede rules a lot, takes up most of this page? I'm not sure as to their contribution to the understanding of a late 18th-early 19th century poem, especially one that does not rock nearly as hard as Maiden. --TheGrza 18:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Uh, hi there, Demonslave. The article previously had the entire listing of lyrics from the song, which actually did take up quite a bit of space. I was the one who deleted it after realizing that there was no justification that could be provided by the Talk page. So, no, I'm not trolling anything. --TheGrza 21:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

"The article previously had the entire listing of lyrics from the song" Noted. Thank you for your reply. :) --Demonslave 21:16, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I removed my previous comment after reading your informative response to my rather hasty initial post. :) Sorry! :D --Demonslave 21:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

i think that there still needs to be mention of iron maiden in the musical references section

I think there were a few reasons for Coleridge to add to the gloss:

 - At the time, the fashion was to claim to have uncovered exracts

or whole poems from ancient times, analyse them and present them to the public. By adding the marginal gloss, Coleridge, increases the feeling of antiquity within the poem (building on other features, such as the archaic language)

 - I also think that by adding the marginal gloss, Coleridge has

opened up many additional corridors of interpretation apart form the simplistic religious connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.250.48 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Serenity reference really necessary?

Yes! - Adrian Pingstone 13:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it shouldn't be there, it is a use of the poem in popular culture, after all. Arianna 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seaQuest and bibliography

I just added a mention of an episode of seaQuest DSV into the pop culture section. When I did this, I noticed that this article is missing a bibliography/works cited. I'd hate to have my seaQuest entry be the only citation. Discuss please! Ycaps123 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

I just noticed that this article and the one on Frankenstein do not reference each other, yet Ancient Mariner was an influence on Shelley in writing Frankenstein, and this shows in the latter's structure: both, for instance are cautionary tales set (partially at least) in a "sea of ice" (North Pole/Mer De Glace/Antarctica) involving a Chinese Box structure of storytelling where the main narrator tells his story before introducing the main story. Both are partially Gothic, partially Romantic in genre, warn of the dangers of violating nature, and deal with the theme of justice (and both are reputed to have been written by people very high on drugs)

Movie Reference

In the first movie version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka says "bubbles, bubbles everywhere, but not a drop to drink". I'm not sure how to put the reference into the main article though. Morgrim 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations

Can we stick at least some more on?

and why is the wedding guest 'sadder and wiser', full of forlorn, yet rising the morrow morn?, i've never really understood that bit;

Are we really going to allow that interpretation of Snoop's 'Murder Was the Case'? Its connection to the poem is tenuous at best. The idea of selling one's soul for earthly rewards and then finding spiritual redemption is a common theme in literature. Even if you put creedence in this interpretation, Snoop could have drawn on any number of sources from Faust to The Picture of Dorian Gray. The analysis is not trivia, and not supported by any evidence besides someone's subjective interpretation. Remove it please.

I've added an interpretation from Jerome McGann. I hope it makes sense.--Ethicoaestheticist 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Albatross

Does anyone know whether this was the origin of the term "albatross" as a sign of some heavy thing weighing over a man's conscience? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.196.27.177 (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The idiom is rather unusual, so it's certainly a very likely source. If there was another source, you'd think someone could reference it. --Agamemnon2 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I'm happy with the Albatross "symbolizing the Christian soul". There are the lines "As if it had been a Christian soul,/We hailed it in God's name." but perhaps the "As if" is important there. Once the mariner shoots the bird, things immediately improve, but then worsen; however, the mariner and crew were trapped between ice before. Of course, once the mariner blesses living things (the water snakes), then the bird falls from his neck. Is the bird necessarily a Christian symbol, though? [Please note: I don't know this poem as well as I'd like to, but I am hoping someone who knows it better may be able to clear this problem up. Many thanks.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.7.21 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comaprisons to Chymical Wedding?

This poem bears stark similarities to the prose piece The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz. Not only does the Ancient Mariner tell the story to a "Wedding-Guest," but even the plot is similar, i.e., a journey to a strange land full of horrors that results in a type of redemption. I think comparison and linking between these two is certainly worthy of peer review, my wikipedians. Grassmonkey 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC) GrassMonkey[reply]

Hi Grassmonkey. Kiran Toor and I recently wrote a paper entitled Coleridge, The Ancient Mariner, and the Philosopher’s Stone, published in the Journal of Romanticism, Volume 2. Our argument is that Rime is essentially an alchemical narrative, which immediately implies correspondence to the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz. There are in fact several hundred references to the alchemical process embedded within the poem, and Coleridge’s private notebooks are heavily accented with the kind of spiritual alchemy that pervaded 17th century science. The line “At one stride comes the dark” is noted by Coleridge himself, privately, to mean a total solar eclipse, which in Rosicrucian terms is the alchemical wedding of sun and moon (Death and Life-in-Death). We go a bit further though to point out that the Transit of Venus, witnessed by his mathematics teacher William Wales in 1769, and only 6 hours shy of a true total solar eclipse on June 4 of that year, underlies the consummation of the alchemical wedding, which is indeed the answer to the riddle buried in Rosenkreutz. There is a great deal of Thomas Burnet’s Theory of the Earth in Rime, notwithstanding the epigram added in 1817, which cross-references quite nicely to the 7-stage alchemical narrative (and the seven parts of the poem). We’re working on a book now to elaborate on the basic argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.94.174 (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I am removing the NPOV tag on the article. If someone wants to put it back, please explain your reasoning here. Lorangriel 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

Removed the article-level-scope cleanup tag on the article. The editor who added it did not explain the reasons here in this Talk page, and much cleanup has been performed since the tag was inserted. - Bevo 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible editions

There is a reference to an albatross in Pink Floyd's "Echoes" and I recall something about an albatross, possibly a direct reference to Coleridge's poem, though I'm unsure, in House of Leaves; are neither of these worth a mention?

In one Roger Zelazny short story there is a robot who killed the last man on earth. The robot is doomed to wander the planet, stopping other robots and forcing them to listen to its tale. I think it is worth mentioning under the literature section 164.107.121.149 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Rime of the Ancient Mariner relates the supernatural events experienced by a mariner on a long sea voyage, as well as how the amazement of ships and rhyme was at the time." - The latter half of this sentence is incomprehensibly ambiguous. Feb. 4, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.66.53 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gloss

I've added the reasons for the 1817 reprinting --RaphaelBriand (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max

I have the strangest remembrance of Mel Gibson quoting some lines from Rime of the Ancient Mariner in one of the Mad Max movies. Could someone check into this and update as necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnjsisk (talk • contribs) 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture References

I understand having maybe one or two popular culture references (keyword popular), but this article does not needs its length doubled by references to every mention of albatrosses or one quote from this epic. Trim this list down, I say. JDCAce (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual issues

The poem was "written in 1797–1799 and published in the first edition of Lyrical Ballads (1798)." How could it have been published in 1798, if it was not finished until 1799? Altgeld (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Coleridge made alterations up to the ~~1816~~1817 publication of Sibylline Leaves, so the completion date should be either 1789 or 1816. Lyrical Ballads was originally published towards the end of the year, so it's sometimes given the 1799 date. That might be the source of the error.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Table Talk, 1830-32

Coleridge's quote has another wording here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/457895 it is a scan of some textbook on Coleridge by Newton P. Stallknecht, if I understand the layout of that page correctly. The bottom of the page, below scan, says:

The quote goes:

Mrs Barbauld once told me that she admired the Ancient Mariner very much,
but that there were two faults in it --  it was improbable, and had no moral. As
for the probability, I owned that that might admit some question; but as to the
want of a moral, I told her that in my own judgment the poem had too much; and
that the only, or chief fault, if I might say so, was the obtrusion of the moral
sentiment so openly on the reader as a principle or cause of action in a work of
such pure imagination.²
² Table Talk, May 31, 1830.

I vaguely remember a more specific explanation by Coleridge in which the forgiving of the sin in some of the verses are spelled out so clearly, that one understands why he can say that the morale is very obtrusive if it was not surrounded by drama.

The gloss again

Clarified the description of the gloss, as it is incorrect to give the impression that lines like "He heareth sounds and seeth strange sights and commotions in the sky and the element" are spelled as they would be in 1817. Coleridge seems to have used the King-James-Bible-style prose as another authorial voice.--Straw Cat (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Dutchman

Is there any link between this poem and the legend of the Flying Dutchman, other than that both characters suffer similar fates? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair question. This was also questioned during a brief editing colloquy a few months ago. A search turned up at least one legitimate on-line source that mentioned the connection [1] so I thought it fair to retain the mention with the cautious wording "may also have been inspired".[2]--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quality assessment

I've requested that the quality of this article is reassessed as this work has had very significant improvement since (not by me) the "start class" rating was given, apparently in 2007. Having read the article as non-expert I was slightly surprised it was not a good article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--INeverCry 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1797 or 1798?

The article says this:

"According to William Wordsworth, the poem was inspired while Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Wordsworth's sister Dorothy were on a walking tour through the Quantock Hills in Somerset in the spring of 1798.[ref: Keach, William (ed.): "The Complete Poems / Samuel Taylor Coleridge", pages 498–99. Penguin, 1997.]"

This is at odds with the lead section which says "written in 1797–98 and published in 1798 in the first edition of Lyrical Ballads." So who is mistaken here - Wordsworth, Keach or the editor who added that source? Most sources seem to give 1797 for the writing of poem e.g. [3]. In fact this source gives "Autumn 1797". Might it be better to remove "in the spring of 1798" here? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. the category is currently Category:1798 poems which matches the year of publication.[reply]

Hobby Lobby 2004

Hobby Lobby used the Book of Rhymes they stole to trade the Iraqi government for stone edifice tablets, it was popularized in song and movie as the quote "and all was still save that the hill was telling of the sound" is heard from the hill which stands for Hollywood; the event happened in Springfield, MO 2004 in the Hobby Lobby break-room.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415092012/http://www.english.uga.edu/~nhilton/232/stc/comp4f.htm to http://www.english.uga.edu/~nhilton/232/stc/comp4f.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence needs disambiguation

The opening sentence of the article is as follows:

"The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (originally The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere) is the longest major poem by the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge, written in 1797–98 and published in 1798 in the first edition of Lyrical Ballads."

I think this can be read in two different ways:

1. "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" is the longest major poem ever written (by anyone).

2. "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" is the longest major poem ever written by this author (Samuel Taylor Coleridge).

The structure of the sentence more strongly suggests the latter meaning, but what led me to question that was the difference in significance between the two interpretations. To say that this is the longest major poem written to date is a far more sweeping and powerful statement than just saying that it is the longest major poem written by this poet. The fact that it is the opening sentence of the article confers upon it inherent qualities of importance and prominence, qualities more consistent with a broad and powerful statement than with a statement of lesser scope and significance. This is why I believe the first interpretation is more likely to be the one intended by the author, but that's not at all clear from the way the sentence was written. Since the uncertainty is rooted solely in semantics, it can be easily resolved by a simple rewrite of the opening sentence to disambiguate its meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphPerry (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]