COLERIDGE'S CRITICISM OF SHAKESPEARE

AS ETHOLOGY AND JUDGMENT

Sharon Gail Fawcett

B.A., Simon Frase r Univers i ty , 1970

A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

i n t h e Department

of

English

@ SHARON GAIL FAWCETT 1974

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

A p r i l 1974

A l l r i g h t s reserved . This t h e s i s may no t be reproduced i n whole o r i n p a r t , by photocopy o r o t h e r means, without permission of t h e author .

APPROVAL

Name : Sharon Gai l Fawcett

Degree: Master of A r t s

T T t l e of Thesis: oler ridge's Cr i t i c i sm of Shakespeare a s Ethology and Judgment

Examining Commit t e e :

Chairman: Jared C u r t i s

-am -

Senior Supervisor

Gerald Newman

\ .

Walter Lever

J

' on^' B e l l e t t e Ex te rna l Examiner

Associate Professor Universi ty of Calgary, Calgary

May 6, 1974 Date Approved:

PARTIAL COP'lfRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby g r a n t t o Simon F rase r Univers i ty t h e r i g h t t o lend

my t h e s i s o r d i s s e r t a t i o n ( the t i t l e of which i s shown below) t o u s e r s

of t h e Simon F r a s e r Un ive r s i t y L ib ra ry , and t o make p a r t i a l o r s i n g l e

copies only f o r such u s e r s o r i n response t o a reques t from the l i b r a r y

of any o the r u n i v e r s i t y , o r o the r educa t iona l i n s t i t u t i o n , on i t s own

behal f o r f o r one of i t s u s e r s . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission f o r

mu l t ip l e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted

by me o r the Dean of Graduate S tudies . It is understood t h a t copying

o r pub l i ca t ion of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l n o t be allowed

without my w r i t t e n permission.

T i t l e of ~ h e s i s / ~ i s s e r t a t i o n :

oler ridge's C r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare as Ethology and Judgment

Author : - r - - - -

( s i g n a t u r e )

Sharon Fawcett

17 74 I

(da te )

iii ABSTRACT

I t is my hypothesis t h a t Coler idge 's Shakespearean

c r i t i c i s m i s a n e tho log ica l and judgmental mode of c r i t i -

cism, This c r i t i c i s m i s an ethology inasmuch as i t s

energ ies a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y d i r e c t e d by, and d i r e c t e d toward,

Coler idge 's sense of t h e "organic form" of Shakespeare's

p lays , Ethos a p p l i e s widely t o Coler idge 's sense of t h e

n a t u r e of organic form, h i s d e f i n i t i o n of imaginat ion,

h i s p r i n c i p l e s of method i n thought , and t h e q u a l i t y of

h i s se l f -dec lared "genia l" ( i . e. genera t ive ) c r i t i c i s m ,

Coler idge 's a n a l y s i s of Shakespeare 's c h a r a c t e r s as both

indiv iduated persona and formal c o n t r i b u t i o n s toward t h e

"organic wholeness" of t h e p lays , i s an e t h o l o g i c a l mode

of c r i t i c a l thought i n s o f a r as it a t t empts t o balance and

r e c o n c i l e form and c h a r a c t e r , Judgment e n t e r s Coler idge 's

dec lared c r i t i c a l i n t e n t i o n s , as we l l as be ing a s e p a r a t e

func t ion of t h e e t h i c a l i n ethology.

The first chap te r i s concerned with Coler idge 's sense

of organic form, and moves t o h i s theory of imagination

and h i s p r i n c i p l e s of method i n order t o conclude t h a t

t h e n a t u r e of e thos i s i m p l i c i t i n Coler idge 's summary

i n t e n t i o n t o prove, by i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h e p r i n c i p l e s of

imaginat ive thought, t h a t Shakespeare's judgment was

equal t o h i s genius, The second and t h i r d chap te r s d e a l

r e s p e c t i v e l y with Coler idge 's c r i t i c a l commentary upon

King Lear and The Tempest. I n these chapters , t h e par-

t i c u l a r s of Coleridge's c r i t i c i s m a r e placed within t h e

broad ou t l i ne of ethology presented i n t h e first chapter ,

Coleridge's observations a r e c r i t i c i z e d and h i s commentary

is augmented by my own exegesis where I have f e l t such

c r i t i c i s m and/or exegesis t o be appropr ia te , The con-

c luding chapter is summary and c l a r i f i c a t i o n according

t o Coleridge's "Pr inciples of Genial Cri t icism" and

t e n t a t i v e suggestions a r e made regarding t h e presence

sf t h e e t h i c a l i n ethology, and i ts r e l a t i o n t o a e s t h e t i c s

and metaphysics, An Appendix is at tached which describes

t h e extant s t a t e of t h e t e x t of Coleridge's Shakespearean

c r i t i c i s m , and some of t h e problems a t tendant upon it,

Dedicated t o the fortunes of Robin Blaser,

and t o my son, Jesse Charles Fawcett.

"Space, Validity and Pleasuren

vii

Gra te fu l acknowledgment is extended t o t h e

members of my supervisory committee: Gerald

Newman, Walter Lever and e s p e c i a l l y Rob Dunharn,

f o r t h e i r encouragement, pa t i ence and kind

i n t e r e s t .

The longsuf f e r i n g members of my household and

t h e good f r i e n d s o u t s i d e it who gave me time,

space and energy, have my e t e r n a l g r a t i t u d e *

h hey know who they a r e * )

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY PAGES

C h a p t e r O n e r COLERIDGE'S C R I T I C I S M OF FORM

C h a p t e r Two: COLERIDGE ON K I N G LEAR

Synopsis

C h a p t e r T h r e e : COLERIDGE ON THE TEMPEST

Synopsis

C h a p t e r Fourt GENIAL C R I T I C I S M AND THE NECESSARY STATEMENT

L I S T OF REFERENCES

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

vii i

pp. i - viii

Chapter One

COLERIDGE'S CRITICISM OF FORM

For Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare I t a k e t h e

idea of form as a poin t of depar tu re , When Coler idge

speaks of t h e two c o n f l i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s of t h e f r e e l i f e

and t h e conf in ing form i n h i s essay "On t h e P r i n c i p l e s of

Genial ~ r i t i c i s r n " ' he is speaking about p r i n c i p l e s which

a r e , f o r him, i d e a l l y r e c o n c i l a b l e and i n n a t e l y r e l a t i v e .

That everyth ing i s r e l a t i v e i s n e i t h e r news nor a b s o l u t e l y

t r u e , bu t t h e term " c o r r e l a t i v e " appears i n Coler idge ' s

t h e o r e t i c a l w r i t i n g s t o mean t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e

p a r t s t o each o t h e r and t o t h e whole of a t h i n g , whether

it is a p a i n t i n g , a t r e e , a p lay of Shakespeare 's o r a

phi losophica l cons t ruc t . The i d e a of form, then , begins

wi th r e l a t i o n s h i p , and r e l a t i o n s h i p i t s e l f i s a t t h e

source of p roc rea t ive a c t i v i t y . Coler idge t e l l s us t h a t

t h e methodical mind contemplates t h e r e l a t i o n s of t h i n g s ,

and t h a t t h e beauty of a t h i n g c r e a t e d by a methodical

mind c o n s i s t s i n t h e held form of i t s i n t e r i o r r e l a t i o n -

sh ips t "Multei ty i n Unity. "2 Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of

Shakespeare 's p lays begins and u l t i m a t e l y ends wi th h i s

no t ion of t h e c o r r e l a t i v e a c t i v i t y of c h a r a c t e r , speech

and action within the forms denominated by the titles of

Shakespeare's plays. My intention to discuss Coleridge's

criticism of King Lear and The Tempest is for purposes of

comparing Coleridge' s apprehension of the tragic vision

with his apprehension of the comic vision, although it

must be immediately stated that the visionary content of

Shakespeare's plays -- and by visionary I mean the world envisioned by the process of its enactment within the

play -- is not the direction of Coleridge's critioal intent. But however Coleridge may attempt to confine

himself to 'illustration of principles'3 (by which he

means formal principles) in his criticism of Shakespeare,

this declared confinement nevertheless converges upon

and affects the meanings of the plays to an extent I

shall describe later,

The voices of Coleridgean scholarship join in unison

to declare that Coleridge's criticism of Shakespeare is

formal in nature and intent, regardless of its sometimes

disparaging description as character or psychological

criticism. That is to say, it has been shown that Coler-

idge's criticism of characters is essentially a criticism

of their formal contribution to the play, and not of

their personalities apart from the formal demands of the

text. The characters in a play are for Coleridge one or

many of the components of the wholeness or harmony of the

play, and their function as parts in relation to each

other and to the whole is the function Coleridge seeks

to articulate, Coleridgees criticism of Shakespeare is

also generally considered to be great, and his greatness

as a critic is partly a function of his formalist ex-

pedience and partly a function of his greatness as a

thinker generally. Coleridge's critical limitations

exist inadvertently alongside his critical greatness for

the same reasons, and my occasional exposition of the

limitations is not intended to diminish the greatness

but rather to objectify the criticism both as artifact -. and as its own subject.

For exemplary and comparative purposes I offer the

propositions of Barbara Hardy and M, M. Badawi in two

separate articles from the publication Essays in Criticism.

Badawi's article, entitled "Coleridge's Formal Criticism

of Shakespeare's Plays, "' is professed to be complemen- tary to the issues raised earlier in Hardy's "'I have a

smack of Hamlet't Coleridge and Shakespeare's Characters, ,I 5

That the word "formal" enters Badawi's title as comple-

mentary to what Hardy sees as Coleridge's sense of charac-

ter, seduces the argument promulgated by both to Coleridge's

sense- of character as a npart of the structure [of the

play], no t as i t s psychological content . *6 Hardy proposes

t h a t Coler idge 's sense of s t r u c t u r e o r form is t h e de-

r i v a t i v e impulse governing h i s sense of a c h a r a c t e r ' s

placement wi th in t h a t form, t h a t is, " the sense of form

d i r e c t s t h e psychological analysis." ' Badawi is t h e r e a f t e r

i n s p i r e d t o desc r ibe what Coler idge perce ives t h e s t r u c -

t u r e o r form of t h e p lay t o be, Nei ther i s s u e can be

separa ted from t h e "whole" i s s u e of Coler idge 's sense of

form, and Coler idge 's "sense of form," a phrase over which

t h e eyes a n d - t h e mind pass quickly , is i n f a c t t h e con ten t

of Coler idge 's l i f e l o n g + thought about t h e n a t u r e , t h e

v i s i o n , t h e boundaries and t h e method of Imagination,

Both Hardy and Badawi i n t h e i r s e p a r a t e papers use t h e

terms "form," "formal," and " s t r u c t u r e H almost i n t e r -

changeably. I s h a l l t h e r e f o r e depar t momentarily from

t h e content of t h e s e essays i n o r d e r t o d e s c r i b e t h e

world encompassed by t h e word "formn when it is used i n

connection wi th t h e imagination and wi th Coleridge' s

thought about t h e n a t u r e of imagination,

The forms c rea ted by t h e Imagination, and t h e forms

governing Imagination's a c t i v i t y , a r e t h e s e s and a n t i t h e s e s

of a d i a l e c t i c a l r ecogn i t ion which seeks phi losophica l

shape i n Coler idge ' s prose w r i t i n g s , of which t h e

c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s as such comprise only a f r a c t i o n . One

looks t o Coler idge ' s poems f o r t h e s y n t h e s i s c r e a t e d

from t h e s t r u g g l e between t h e forms given t o Imagination

and t h e forms Imagination d i s c l o s e s and d iscovers as it

a t t e n d s t o t h e forms which i n h a b i t i t s own a c t i v i t y .

The meaning of t h e word imago and t h e p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y

of metamorphosis e n t e r our word imagination (both

etymological ly and entomological ly) as t h e t ransformat ion

v i s i b l y e f f e c t e d by t h e emergence of t h e b u t t e r f l y from

its own c h r y s a l i s , and becomes t h e image of what it is

t o make forms. And a poem, as an a c t i v i t y of p o e s i s ,

i s a making. Information i s t h e gene t i c p r i n c i p l e of

t ransformat ion t t h e b u t t e r f l y i s t h e awakening and syn-

t h e s i s of t h e g e n e t i c p r i n c i p l e s contained wi th in i t s

own being , The form from which t h e b u t t e r f l y g ives b i r t h

t o i t s e l f is i n i ts own l e s s remarkable way t h e product

of another b i r t h , another s e t of metaphorical a c t i v i t i e s

i n which b i r t h and death a r e t h e necessary r e p e t i t i o n s

of one ano the r , Metamorphosis is simply and profoundly

p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e inexorable l a w s of t h e n a t u r a l world

and "Nature i t s e l f i s t o a r e l i g i o u s observer t h e a r t of

God,"8 Coler idge t e l l s us . Coler idge ' s sense of form,

as i n t u i t i v e as it i s eloquent , f i n d s v i s i b l e proof i n

t h e kind of s e e i n g made p o s s i b l e by modern sc ience ,

whose magnif ica t ions of t h e i n v i s i b l e d i s c l o s e "genet ic

codes" r e s i d i n g i n t h e smal l e s t p a r t i c l e s of l i v i n g forms

and express ing t h e cont inuing h i s t o r y of those forms as forms. The combining and syn thes iz ing of t h e s e p a r t i c l e s

i n t o a v i s i b l e whole i s t h e ordered confluence of t h e i r

own reproduct ive a c t i v i t y according t o s e l f - o r i g i n a t i n g

and s e l f - l i m i t i n g l a w s . The sc ience of g e n e t i c s r e p e a t s

i n i t s way Coler idge ' s d e f i n i t i o n of l i f e as * t h e pr in-

c i p l e of ind iv idua t ion o r t h e power t h a t u n i t e s a given

a l l i n t o a whole t h a t i s presupposed by a l l i t s p a r t s " 9

and t h e s e p a r t i c l e s of gene t i c knowledge l i t e r a l l y

i m i t a t e themselves i n t o a recognizable form or wholeness.

One i s tempted, a long wi th t h e s c i e n t i s t s and a long with

Coler idge, as one i s always vaguely tempted, t o p o s t u l a t e

t h e primary impulse i n t h e universe which t h e s e laws

i m i t a t e . This impulse Coler idge names -- and one is never

made more aware of t h e inadequacy of t h e ve rba l form -- t h e Supreme Being; and t h e i n c e s s a n t l y modified formulas

of t h e s c i e n t i s t s amount t o t h e same th ingt a sense of

mystery. "There i s noth ing ," Coler idge says, " the abso lu te

ground of which i s no t a mystery. , l o This i s recogn i t ion ,

no t c a p i t u l a t i o n t and t h a t Coler idge defended Shakespeare

a g a i n s t h i s c r i t i c a l predecessors who were con ten t t o

eschew t h e r e a l n a t u r e of mystery i n favor of s o l i c i t o u s

baff lement , a t t e s t s t o t h i s ,

I have no t invented t h e language of t h i s r a t h e r

extended metaphor of t h e way i n which "form" p a r t i c i p a t e s

i n " imaginat ion," any more than t h e s c i e n t i s t s invented

t h e g e n e t i c code which o r d e r s t h a t t h e b u t t e r f l y emerge

from t h e c h r y s a l i s . A s human beings we d e l i g h t i n t h e

beauty of t h e b u t t e r f l y 3 it i s i n motion; it is decorated

with symmetrical bands of co lour ; it i s d e l i c a t e and

s e n t i e n t ; we a s c r i b e words l i k e "monarch" t o i t s grandest

members, We do n o t f i n d t h e c h r y s a l i s o r t h e l a r v a so

b e a u t i f u l except by an e f f o r t of academic w i l l , and who-

ever u t t e r e d t h e word "metamorphosis" u t t e r e d h i s own

human sense of beauty, A r t i t s e l f , Coleridge t e l l s us ,

i s r a d i c a l l y p o e s i s and pr imal ly human, Poetry " a v a i l s

i t s e l f of t h e forms of n a t u r e t o r e c a l l , t o express , and

t o modify t h e thoughts and f e e l i n g s of t h e mind, "11 In

as much as p o e s i s i s t h e primal g e s t u r e of any a r t , it

is only poet ry which draws on language; thus muta poes is

becomes Coler idge ' s d e f i n i t i o n of t h e "Fine A r t s i n

genera l , " where "mute" is taken as opposed n o t t o sound

but t o a r t i c u l a t e speech8 "Poetry can only a c t th rou ih

t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n of a r t i c u l a t e speech, which i s so pe-

c u l i a r l y human, t h a t i n a l l languages it c o n s t i t u t e s t h e

ordinary phrase by which man and n a t u r e a r e con t rad i s -

t inguished. "I2 The human observing t h e b u t t e r f l y is

con t rad i s t ingu i shed from t h e b u t t e r f l y by h i s a b i l i t y

t o u t t e r words and images i n response t o i t s transformed

being. By magic t h e b u t t e r f l y emerges magically b e a u t i f u l

-- our r educ t ion of magic t o psychic p a r l o r t r i c k s never-

t h e l e s s p e r s i s t s i n t h e image of t h e r a b b i t s l e a p i n g from

t h e magician's h a t which we supposed t o be empty. But

t h e word "image" l i v e s i n our word "imagination" as

t h e human mind's r ecogn i t ion of t h e ways of i ts own

thought , and an apotheos is of t h i s same recogn i t ion was

a female d i v i n i t y named Psyche, f o r whom t h e b u t t e r f l y -.

was an emblem. Coler idge ' s "psychological" c r i t i c i s m of

Shakespeare 's p l a y s i s l i n g u i s t i c a l l y t i e d t o , and meta-

p h o r i c a l l y a l i v e i n , h i s sense of imaginat ion 's a c t i v i t y .

And t h e f a c t t h a t t h e word imaginat ion con ta ins wi th in

i t s e l f an i m i t a t i o n of n a t u r e ( i m i t a r i ) f i n d s g race fu l

a s s e n t i n Coler idge ' s s ta tement t h a t proceeding form i s

a "se l f -wi tness ing and s e l f - e f f e c t e d sphere of agency. "13

However t h i s i s t r u e f o r t h e n a t u r e of c r e a t i o n i t s e l f ,

it i s a l s o t r u e f o r what Coler idge c a l l e d Method, o r

t h e progress ive p r i n c i p l e of Shakespeare 's imaginat ibe

thought as it appears i n h i s a r t , The i d e a of form as

a p r i n c i p l e v i t a l l y wi th in t h e processes of n a t u r e and

thought, as dist inguished from an idea of form as organiz-

a t i o n imposed from without, is bas i ca l ly t h e same dis-

t i n c t i o n between "organicn and "mechanicn form. That

Coleridge's thought i s "organicn and t h a t it proposes an

organic view of na ture has become a commonplace. Yet

numbers of c r i t i c s s t i l l t r e a t t h i s organicism as a

concept belonging t o Coleridge's opinions about t he world,

and by extension, t o t h e opinions about t h e world propo-

gated by romanticism. There is correctness i n t h e d i s -

t i n c t i o n between t h e perceptions of "romantic" thought

and those of eighteenth-century ra t ional ism, but such

correctness fa l l s shor t of t h e t r u t h , which is t o say e

t h a t t h e overwhelming evidence of everything, including

t h e meanings of human language, makes of t he 'organic"

t h e na ture of phenomenon i t s e l f . I have shown t h a t

organic form, far from being simply a conceptual ra t iona l -

i z a t i o n , i s t h e metaphorical content of whatever experience

t h e cons t ruc t s of language o f f e r us , as well as being

t h e f ac tua l empiricism of those who wish t o discover

t r u t h s outs ide of t h e realm of language's b i a s , The

na ture of organicism i t s e l f demands t h a t it be apprehended

from t h e i n s ide and not from the outs ide -- i t s first

p r inc ip l e i$ t h e SUM or I AM. Coleridge's own proceeding

from t h i s first p r i n c i p l e means t h a t Shakespeare h imsel f ,

and n o t h i s p lays , i s t h e c e n t r e of Coler idge 's c r i t i c a l

concern. And so appears another commonplace -- t h a t

Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare i s "psychological."

By a s i n g l e remark i n h i s notebook, Coleridge

f e l i c i t o u s l y exposed a fundamental e r r o r of mechanical

empiricism, based on t h e mind's pass ive recep t ion of

s i n g l e "sensa t ions* from t h e o u t s i d e world as c o n s t i t u t -

i n g t h e human a c t of knowing. Coleridge s a i d simply,

"Who ever f e l t a s i n g l e sensa t ion?" Such a remark

could n o t poss ib ly come from a person who was n o t a c u t e l y

aware of h i s own mental processes , and o f hi-s own exper-

ience as a knower i n t e r a c t i n g with and presupposing t h e

knowable, "Knowledge without a correspondent r e a l i t y i s

no knowledge; i f we know, t h e r e must be somewhat known

by us . To know i s i n i t s very essence a verb a c t i v e . ,115

Coler idge ' s consciousness of t h e a c t i v i t y of thought as

a process , and as a process d i a l e c t i c a l l y connected t o

t h a t process o r consciousness grandly and mutely embodied

i n what he c a l l s Nature, i s i n e x t r i c a b l e from t h e a c t i v i t y

presupposed i n organic form. Owen B a r f i e l d n o t e s t h a t it

was i n Coler idge ' s l i f e t i m e t h a t " f o r t h e f i r s t time a

word was needed as a c l a s s name f o r ' inanimate mat ter '

and bodies formed from it. For t h e first time l i f e and

l i v i n g had become t h e c o r r e l a t i v e s , no t of death and

dying, bu t of inorganic , o r , i n its l a t e r sense , inani-

mate. - 'I6 The inanimate i s as l i t e r a l l y inconceivable

as t h e s i n g l e sensa t ion i n t h e realm of knowing, and

t h a t Coler idge makes knowledge an a c t is a fundamental

p r i n c i p l e informing, among o t h e r t h i n g s , h i s c r i t i c i s m

of Shakespeare. The word "psychological" as it i s now

used, i s a sad ly inadequate d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s p r i n c i p l e ,

even as it appears i n Coler idge ' s consummate i n t e r e s t i n

c h a r a c t e r s . I w i l l r e t u r n t o c l a r i f y t h i s l a t e r , but i n

t h e meantime I wish t o f o r c e t h e i s s u e t h a t Coler idge ' s

consciousness of t h e a c t i v i t y of thought i s n o t mere

egocentrism, f o r Coler idge a s s e r t s t h e I AM, n o t t h e I.

H i s i s n o t a mind disposed t o be e n t e r t a i n e d by t h e

s u p e r f i c i a l d i s p a r i t y of t h i n g s which a r e underneath a l l

a l i k e , and a l l simple; o r t o hold t o t h e "dreary , . .be l ie f

t h a t every t h i n g around us i s bu t a phantom, o r t h a t t h e

l i f e which is i n u s is i n them l ikewise . "I7 This is

perhaps a d i s p a r i t y between Coler idge ' s thought and t h a t

of Wordsworth, and Cole r idge8s a c c u r a t e c r i t i c i s m of

Wordsworth's poe t ry was a l s o an a c c u r a t e c r i t i c i s m of

a h a b i t of thought. Co le r idge8s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare

confines i t s e l f t o t h e hab i t s , t h e methods and the

processes of thought demonstrably present i n Shakespeare's

art , Moreover, Coleridge believed t h a t t he methods of

c r e a t i v e thought a r e as demonstrable as a r e t h e methods

of empirical thought, The di f ference l i e s i n t h e aug-

mentation of t h e known effected by poet ic thought and

t h e reduction of t he known t o i ts most manipulable

elements, t o " s ing le sensat ions, " effected by r a t i o n a l

empirical thought,

The word "form," then, when it i-s used by c r i t i c s

t o mean "Coleridge's sense of form,n means organic form; - and t h e organic i n t u rn i s what i s phenomenologically

t r u e -- it is phenemonon i t s e l f . I have e a r l i e r objected

t o those c r i t i c s who confuse morphology i n t h i s sense

with mere s t r u c t u r e when they a r e speaking of Coleridge's

c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare's plays, o r who even more

damagingly r e l e g a t e organic form t o t h e novel notions of

a genre, To propose t h e organic as a s t a t i c concept i s

i n t h e first place se l f -contradic tory , And t o f u r t h e r

introduce a s t a t i c concept of a perpetual ly evolving and

se l f - c r ea t ing universe as a philosophical formula " in f lu -

enced bytt t h e conventions of a German school of thought,

is an i n t o l e r a b l e misprision of reason and denia l of

experience. Such an approach, unredeemed

even by t h e t en ta t iveness implied

by approaching, is exemplified i n an a r t i c l e by Sylvan

Barnet e n t i t l e d "Coleridge on Shakespeare's V i l l a i n s , "

t o which I s h a l l r e f e r i n my d i scuss ion of King Lear.

Another is i n t h e r e l e n t l e s s l y p a r t i s a n thought of

Norman Fruman's Coleridge, The Damaged Archangel, I* t o

which I a t t e n d i n t h e Appendix, and t o which George

S t e i n e r r e f e r r e d i n a review as a "profoundly vulgar

The a r t i c l e s by Barbara Hardy and MI M. Badawi *

a r e a t t empts t o p r o t e c t t h e r e a l i n t e g r i t y of Coler idge 's

c r i t i c i s m a g a i n s t accusa t ions of "mereN psychologizing

and "mere" c h a r a c t e r c r i t i c i s m a t t h e expense of aes-

t h e t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n and formal apprehension, Hardy c i t e s

such eminent Coleridgean s c h o l a r s as Kathleen Coburn and

T. M a Raysor as belonging t o t h a t be leaguer ing crew be-

cause of c e r t a i n p re fa to ry o r e d i t o r i a l remarks t o t h e

e f f e c t t h a t Coler idge 's sense of form and language is

overwhelmed by h i s psychological a n a l y s i s , Hardy claims,

i n supposed oppos i t ion , t h a t Coler idge 's i n t e r e s t i n t h e

psychology of cha rac te r was 8 'control led and d i r e c t e d by

h i s sense of imaginat ive form, I say 'supposed oppo-

s i t i o n " because Kathleen Coburn, i n r e fe rence t o what

she c a l l s Coler idge 's "psychological approach t o a l l

human problems" s t a t e s as c l a r i f i c a t i o n , n o t r educ t ion ,

t h a t "whether it be punctuat ion, o r p o l i t i c a l sovere ignty

,. ,he s e e s it as a p iece of human experience, under-

s t andab le i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e whole human organism,

i n d i v i d u a l o r s o c i a l , s o far as t h a t organism can be

comprehended as a whole. '12' Hardye s f u r t h e r remarks,

and Badawies supplementary p ropos i t ions , a r e , u l t i m a t e l y ,

r e c a p i t u l a t i o n s of Coburn's s ta tement . More t o t h e po in t

is t h a t both Hardy and Badawi a r e loquacious ly aware

t h a t t h e r e l e g a t i o n of Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m t o charac-

te r a l o n e o r t o psycholggical c r i t i c i s m is a f a l s e

p a r t i t i o n i n g of t h e fundamental p r i n c i p l e of organic

form, Hardy s a y s t h a t "Coleridge's sense of form d i r -

e c t s h i s a n a l y s i s of ind iv idua l c h a r a c t e r s and c o n t r o l s

h i s i n t e r e s t i n psychological r ea l i sm, Without t h i s

sense of form he would s t i l l have been a g r e a t c h a r a c t e r

c r i t i c l i k e H a z l i t t o r Bradley...but wi th it he is a

g r e a t dramatic c r i t i c . "22 Hardy is defending Coler idge

a g a i n s t " t h e p e r s i s t e n t c laim t h a t h i s a n a l y s i s of char-

a c t e r is t h e most admirable p a r t of h i s c r i t i c i s m of

Shakespeare, and he r defense is l i b e r a l l y populated

wi th t h e c h a r a c t e r s from Shakespeare's p lays toward

whom Coler idge d i r e c t s h i s e s s e n t i a l l y formal and there-

f o r e s c h o l a s t i c a l l y r e p u t a b l e concerns, She a v e r s t h a t

Coleridge's confession that "I have a smack of Hamlet

myselftt2' was an unfortunate one, adding fuel to the fire

of those who would propose narcissism as the sinister

cause of Coleridge's interest in character, I myself

have never seen Coleridge's Shakespearean criticism

deplored on the basis of that remark alonei on the con-

trary it is cited in many biographical contexts as an

accurate perception, not only in terms of Coleridge's

own life, but also in the larger terms that Hamlet's

condition is potentially present in any man of imagination,

In this sense, Coleridge's narcissism is put to sound

pedagogical use; and only a profound naivety would assume

that narcissism is absent from the complexity of the human

response to art, In this respect Hardy states that "Col-

eridge's interest in psychological character was subor-

dinated to his acknowledgement of Imagination. He sees

the play as a communicable form, not as a series of truth-

ful human documents. lt2' Coleridge's formal interest in

character, tied as it is to his "acknowledgement of

Imagination" and therefore to the issues of what it is to

imitate reality as opposed to copying it, produces his -

"interest in the way in which verisimilitude is communi-

cated, and the interest in those functions of character

which are not determined by verisimilitude. II 26

The central assertions of Hardy's article can be

summarily found in an early statement that "[~olerid~e]

seldom considers the dramatic character in isolation,

either from the dramatic context of other characters or

from the full context of the orientation towards the

audience,,,,He is almost always aware that the play is

a whole and that its parts are the diffusions of imagin-

ative power and not the fixities and definites of ac-

curate copying, 't27 In King Lear, for example, Hardy

claims that Coleridge is placing the psychological effect

in a dramatic context; but my discussion of Coleridge's - treatment of King Lear will argue that the opposite is

true for that particular play -- that is, that Coleridge places the dramatic context within its psychological

effect, This is not, however, a disagreement with the

entirety of Hardy's argument; nor is my reversal of

Hardy's sense of King Lear to be understood as a negation

either of the value of Coleridge's criticism of that

play, or of Hardy's central precepts,

In "Coleridge's Formal Criticism of Shakespeare's

Plays" M e M e Badawi acknowledges that while Hardy demon-

strated Coleridge's formal criticism of Shakespeare's

characters, Badawi himself will demonstrate, as complement,

Coleridge's criticism of the structure of Shakespeare's

plays . But Badawi is f i n a l l y n o t a rgu ing from design, as

h i s term " s t r u c t u r e " would have us b e l i e v e , but r a t h e r

from Coler idge 's not ion of form i t s e l f as an i n n e r s t r u c -

t u r e , t h e u n i t y of t h e p a r t s wi th in t h e whole. Badawi

says "each p lay i s an organic whole, a temporal develop-

ment, and not a s t a t i c adding of one scene t o another .

Every ind iv idua l scene has an implied p a s t , a present and

a f u t u r e . "28 What Badawi s e e s as t h e case f o r every

i n d i v i d u a l scene is more obviously p resen t i n what Coler-

idge s e e s as t h e necessary case f o r every ind iv idua l

c h a r a c t e r . And i n t h e realm of "scenes" Coleridge i s

u s u a l l y content t o p lace t h e l a r g e r p a r t of h i s c r i t i c a l

i n t e r e s t i n t h e f i r s t scene of each play. 1n t h i s regard

Badawi n o t e s t h a t Coler idge 's i n t e r e s t i n first scenes

is i n e x t r i c a b l e from h i s sense of organic wholeness, and

" i n n e a r l y a l l Coler idge ' s remarks on t h e s e f i r s t scenes,

a scene i s judged by him va luab le i n propor t ion t o i ts

c o n t r i b u t i o n towards t h e t o t a l e f f e c t of t h e whole p lay , ,I 29

Like Hardy, Badawi defends Coler idge a g a i n s t accusa t ions

t h a t he n e g l e c t s p l o t by proposing t h a t "of a l l t h e

Romantic c r i t i c s of Shakespeare, Coleridge i s t h e most

s e n s i t i v e t o t h e formal a s p e c t s of t h e p lays , w30 and'

moreover, t h a t "Coleridge was t h e f i r s t Engl ish Shakes-

pearean c r i t i c t o w r i t e s e r i o u s formal c r i t i c i s m , tt 31

However, Badawi makes one s tatement about Coler idge 's

sense of form which inadver ten t ly exposes some of t h e

l i m i t a t i o n s of Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m . Badawi says t h a t

"with h i s deep sense of t h e organic form of Shakespearean

drama, [ ~ o l e r i d ~ e ] apparen t ly considered t h e whole out-

ward movement of a p lay as t h e embodiment of t h e v i s i o n

it expresses . w32 My po in t i s t h a t t h e v i s i o n t h e play

expresses i s r a r e l y expressed by Coler idge, and I propose

t h i s n o t as accusa t ion r i f e wi th va lue judgment but as

t h e apparent f a c t t h a t Coler idge ' s c r i t i c a l s t r e n g t h s

and f a i l i n g s a r e those of formalism. Badawi concedes - t h a t Coler idge went too f a r i n . h i s a t tempt t o r e i n s t a t e

Shakespeare 's judgment, as a r e a c t i o n t o eighteenth-

century c r i t i c s who made of Shakespeare an inexp l i cab le

phenomenon. The d i f f e r e n c e t o my mind i s t h a t Coleridge

made of Shakespeare an exp l i cab le phenomenon, and I

genera l ly concur with Badawi t h a t Coler idge ' s e f f o r t t o

r e i n s t a t e Shakespeare 's judgment was excessive, but no t

f o r t h e same reasons Badawi proposes. I w i l l d i scuss

l a t e r t h e imaginat ive context wi th in which Coleridge

p laces judgment, and i t s emergence from t h a t context as -

an exp l i cab le phenomenon of imaginat ive thought ,

Barbara Hardy and M, M. Badawi toge the r t r e a t

Coler idge ' s Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m as a genera l accom-

plishment r e l a t i v e t o t h e c r i t i c a l accomplishments which

both precede and fol low it. The e x h i b i t i o n of ins t ances

of "Coler idge 's sense of form" is f o r purposes of p lac ing

Coler idge ' s c h a r a c t e r a n a l y s i s wi th in a competent i n t e g r i t y

of i n t e n t . A s such, t h e i r papers a r e among pioneer con-

t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e kind of Coleridgean scho la r sh ip which

f i n d s more c r e a t i v e and r e l e v a n t scope i n books l i k e

J, R . de J, Jackson's Method and Imagination i n Coler idge 's

Cr i t i c i sm. 33 Jackson ' s book i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l be-

cause it p laces Coler idge 's concept of method as i n t e r i o r

t o and i n e x t r i c a b l e from h i s theory of imagination, and

thus t h e i s s u e of "judgment," as a funct ion of method,

becomes a more v i t a l one than Badawi suspected it t o be.

Hardy makes no s p e c i f i c mention of Coler idge 's concern

with Shakespeare 's judgment, a l though she r e f e r s t o

Co le r idgess "acknowledgement of Imagination" as suavely as

she r e f e r s t o Coler idge 's "sense of form.'' The s t r u c t u r a l

i s what Hardy's i n t e l l i g e n c e i s most amenable t o , c r i t i c -

a l l y speaking, and t h i s a e s t h e t i c i s c l e a r l y present i n

her argument t h a t Coler idge ' s a e s t h e t i c i s s t r u c t u r a l

a l s o , and I have mentioned t h a t she uses t h e words form -

and s t r u c t u r e wi th l i t t l e demarcation between them, Col-

e r idge , however, would r e l e g a t e form t o t h e organic and

s t r u c t u r e t o t h e mechanic modes of c r e a t i o n ;

s o f a r has been t o show t h a t t h i s r e l e g a t i o n

and my at tempt

i s n e i t h e r

a r b i t r a r y nor simply conceptual. I have a l s o attempted

t o show t h a t organic form is i t s e l f t h e n a t u r e of pheno-

menal r e a l i t y . Inasmuch as t h i s r e a l i t y i s t h e one

i m i t a t e d by Shakespeare, t h e a r t i f a c t subsequent ly c r e a t e d

i n t h e form of t h e p lays is t h e a r t i f a c t par excel lence

t o which Coler idge addresses h i s sense of form. A s a

" v i t a l wr i t e r t ' whose "judgment r e v e a l s i t s e l f i n h i s

genius as i n i ts most exa l t ed form"(CWS 1 9 9 ) , Shakespeare 's

sense of form is t h e r e v e l a t i o n e f f e c t e d and ordered by .h

t h e methodical processes of imagination. Coler idge

r a r e l y d i s p l a y s c r i t i c a L i n t e r e s t i n mere t a l e n t as such,

o r wi th s t r u c t u r e as such, o r wi th form as imposed

s t r u c t u r e . Ins tead , Coler idge c r e a t e s a f a c u l t y c a l l e d

"fancy" i n which t o p lace t h e necessary bu t fundamentally

u n i n t e r e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s of s t r u c t u r a l c r e a t i v i t y . I w i l l

r e t u r n t o t h i s l a t e r , bu t he re I wish t o p o i n t ou t t h a t

Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare is n o t simply a n

academic exe rc i se . Coler idge ' s sympathy wi th t h e ar t of

Shakespeare is e s s e n t i a l l y t h e p l a t o n i c love o r p h i l o s

of a poet f o r a poetry which most v i s i b l y demonstrates

i ts own imaginat ive a c t i v i t y , and which most r i c h l y f u l f i l s

t h e formal p r i n c i p l e s informing i ts own process. There

is l i t t l e doubt i n Coler idge ' s mind about t h e g rea tness

of ,Shakespearems ar t -- he is mainly concerned t o show

why and how it is g r e a t .

The imaginat ion i s t h e t r a n s m i t t e r of t h e world, and

t h e poet , a s a man of i n t e n s e imagination, i s an ar t i -

c u l a t e t r a n s m i t t e r of t h e world. The process of t r ans -

m i t t i n g is a c t i v e , p a r t i c i p a n t , c r e a t i v e and wi l l ed ; and

Coler idge ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e poet " i n

i d e a l perfect ion ' ' echoes and augments h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of

t h e secondary imagination found i n t h i s famous d e f i n i t i o n ;

The primary I M A G I N A T I O N I hold t o be t h e l i v i n g Power and prime Agent of a l l human Percept ion, and as a r e p e t i t i o n i n t h e f i n i t e mind o f t h e e t e r n a l a c t of c r e a t i o n i n t h e i n f i n i t e I AM. The secondary Imagination I cons ider as an echo of t h e former, co -ex i s t ing with t h e conscious w i l l , y e t s t i l l as i d e n t i c a l wi th t h e primary i n t h e kind of i t s agency, and d i f f e r i n g only i n degree, and i n t h e mode of i t s opera t ion . It d i s s o l v e s , d i f f u s e s , d i s s i p a t e s , i n order t o r e c r e a t e ; o r where t h i s process i s rendered impossible , y e t s t i l l a t a l l events it s t r u g g l e s t o i d e a l i z e and t o uni fy . It is e s s e n t i a l l y v i t a l , even as a l l o b j e c t s (as o b j e c t s ) a r e essen- t i a l l y f i x e d and dead.34

I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d here t h a t Coler idge ' s use of t h e term

"organic" p laces it i n p o l a r oppos i t ion t o t h e inanimate.

The secondary imagination i n t h i s sense i s r a d i c a l l y t i e d

by way of i t s " v i t a l " processes , t o t h e v i t a l process

which i s t h e meaning of organic form. "Form" i s a "pro-

ceeding," Coler idge d e c l a r e s , t o s e t a g a i n s t "shape as

superinduced"35 and whereas t h e proceeding of form r-e-

c r e a t e s t h e t h i n g it i m i t a t e s , t h e imposi t ion of mechan-

i c a l shape r e s u l t s i n t h e "death o r imprisonmentN of t h e

t h i n g it a t t empts t o copy. So, t h e poet descr ibed i n

i d e a l p e r f e c t i o n i s Coler idge 's r e i f i c a t i o n of t h e forms

made by a poe t i c i n t e l l i g e n c e which imagines t h e poe t i c

i n t e l l i g e n c e of t h e Supreme Crea tor of n a t u r e ' s proceeding

forms t

The poet , descr ibed i n i d e a l pe r fec t ion , b r ings t h e whole sou l of man i n t o a c t i v i t y ~ . ~ . H e d i f f u s e s a tone and s p i r i t of u n i t y t h a t blends and. . , fuses each i n t o each, by t h a t s y n t h e t i c and magical power t o which we have exc lus ive ly appropr ia ted t h e name of imaginat ion, This power...reveals i t s e l f i n t h e balance o r reconcilement of oppos i te o r d iscordant q u a l i t i e s t of sameness, with d i f f e r e n c e ; of t h e genera l , wi th t h e concre te ; t h e idea , with t h e image; t h e i n d i v i d u a l , with t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ; t h e sense of novel ty and f reshness , with o ld and familiar ob- j e c t s ; a more than usual s t a t e of emotion, with more than usual order...and while it blends-and harmonizes t h e n a t u r a l and t h e a r t i f i c i a l , s t i l l subordina tes art t o n a t u r e ; t h e manner t o t h e mat ter ; and our admirat ion of t h e poet t o our sympathy with t h e poe t ry , 36

The range of c o n t r a r i e s whose "reconcilement" is t h e

domain and t h e impulse of p o e t i c thought encompasses

everyth ing t h a t can be imagined o r observed t o belong t o

t h e realms and t h e impulses of l i f e and death; and which

e x i s t i n p o l a r , n o t l o g i c a l , oppos i t ion t o one another .

The d i f f e r e n c e is profoundly important , f o r Coler idge 's - sense of p o l a r i t y presupposes a s i n g l e power manifested

i n two f o r c e s , among them and r e l e v a n t t o our concern,

" the two c o n f l i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s of t h e FREE LIFE and t h e

conf in ing FORM, lt3? which appears i n Coler idge 's "Pr inc ip les

of Genial C r i t i c i s m a t t Coler idge s t a t e s elsewhere t h a t

"every t h i n g o r phaenomenon i s t h e exponent of a s - w t h e s i s

as l o n g as t h e oppos i te ene rg ies a r e r e t a i n e d i n t h a t

synthesis ."38 This a c t i v i t y of s y n t h e s i s i s t r a n s l a t e d

i n t o Coler idge 's d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i d e a l poet whose

imaginat ion i s a " syn the t i c and magical power." The

"opposi te o r d iscordant q u a l i t i e s " synthesized by imagin-

a t i o n ' s power i n t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n a r e those which would

p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e formal demands of an a r t i f a c t such as

a p lay of Shakespeare's -- " t h e ind iv idua l wi th t h e rep-

r e s e n t a t i v e " and s o f o r t h . But behind Coler idge 's sense

of t h e syn thes iz ing power of imagination l i e s t h e t h e s i s

and t h e a n t i t h e s i s , t h e p o l a r i t i e s whose apprehension,

Owen B a r f i e l d t e l l s us , "is i t s e l f t h e b a s i c act of - imaginat ion, w39 So Coleridge, a l l u d i n g t o t h e po la r

oppos i t ion of t h e " f r e e l i f e a ' and t h e "conf in ing formt'

s t a t e s t h a t i n poet ry , "passion i t s e l f i m i t a t e s o rde r ,

and t h e order r e s u l t i n g produces a p leasureab le passion, ,I 40

Therefore t h e a c t of s y n t h e s i s e f f e c t e d by t h e imagin-

a t i o n means t h a t t h e p o l a r i t i e s i m i t a t e , and do n o t -

preclude, one another . Coler idge can sca rce ly s t a t e

o f t e n enough t h e n e c e s s i t y t h a t t h e a r t i s t i m i t a t e n a t u r e

and n o t copy it, f o r " the word i m i t a t i o n i t s e l f means

always a combination of a c e r t a i n degree of d i s s i m i l i t u d e

wi th a c e r t a i n degree of s imi l i tude" (CWS 69) .

I t i s s u f f i c i e n t t h a t ph i losoph ica l ly we understand t h a t i n a l l i m i t a t i o n two elements must c o e x i s t , and n o t only c o e x i s t , but be perceived as coexis t ing . These two c o n s t i t u e n t elements a r e l i k e n e s s and unl ikeness , and i n a l l genuine c r e a t i o n s of a r t t h e r e must be a union of t h e s e d i s p a r a t e s . The a r t i s t may t a k e h i s p o i n t of view where he p leases , provided t h a t t h e d e s i r e d e f f e c t be pe rcep t ib ly produced -- t h a t t h e r e be l i k e n e s s i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e , d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e l i k e n e s s , and a reconcilement of both i n one. If t h e r e be l i k e n e s s t o n a t u r e without any check of d i f f e r e n c e , t h e r e s u l t i s d i sgus t ing , and t h e more corn l e t e t h e de lus ion , t h e more loa th - g some t h e e f f e c t . 1

Coler idge goes on t o i n s i s t t h a t t h e ar t is t must i m i t a t e

t h e b e a u t i f u l i n n a t u r e and must "master t h e essence, t h e

n a t u r a na turans which presupposes a bond between na tu re

i n t h e h ighes t sense and t h e sou l of man, w42 I w i l l

t a k e up t h e i s s u e of i m i t a t i o n and .beau ty i n t h e context

of my d i scuss ion of King Lear and The Tempest, bu t i n t h e

meantime I wish t o l i m i t Coler idge ' s sense of t h e a c t i v i t y

of i m i t a t i o n t o h i s percept ion of it i n Shakespeare's

c r e a t i o n of c h a r a c t e r s t

The t r u t h i s , Shakespeare's c h a r a c t e r s a r e all- genera i n t e n s e l y ind iv idua l i zed ; t h e r e s u l t s of medi ta t ion , of which observat ion suppl ied t h e dra- pery and t h e colours necessary t o combine them with each o t h e r , He had v i r t u a l l y surveyed a l l t h e g r e a t

components and impulses of human nature , - - had seen t h a t t h e i r d i f f e r e n t combinations and subordina t ions were i n f a c t t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e r s of men, and showed how t h e i r harmony was produced by r e c i p r o c a l d i s - propor t ions of excess o r de f i c i ency , The language i n which t h e s e t r u t h s a r e expressed was n o t drawn from any s e t fash ion , but from t h e profoundest depths of h i s own moral be ing (CWS 207).

I have s t a t e d t h a t Coler idge 's apprehension of c h a r a c t e r ,

a p a r t from i t s d e s c r i p t i o n as " p s y c h ~ l o g i c a l , ~ ' de r ives

from a metaphysical apprehension of SUM, o r I A M l and n o t

simply t h e I , which Coleridge says i s an e f f e c t , not a

power. The imagination, it w i l l be r e c a l l e d a l s o , i s

"a r e p e t i t i o n i n t h e f i n i t e mind of t h e e t e r n a l a c t of

c r e a t i o n i n t h e i n f i n i t e I AM." Shakespeare 's c h a r a c t e r s ,

Coler idge t e l l s us , a r e a l l "genera i n t e n s e l y indiv idual ized"

and organic form i s p r e c i s e l y t h e n a t u r e of t h e i r embodi-

ment, f o r "poetry must embody i n o rde r t o r evea l i t s e l f "

and "each e x t e r i o r i s t h e physiognomy of t h e being within"

The form i s mechanic when on any given m a t e r i a l we impress a predetermined form no t n e c e s s a r i l y a r i s i n g out of t h e p r o p e r t i e s of t h e m a t e r i a l , as when t o a mass of wet c l a y we g ive whatever shape we wish it t o r e t a i n when hardened. The organic form on t h e o the r hand i s i n n a t e ; i t shapes as i t develops i t s e l f from wi th in , and t h e f u l l n e s s of i t s development i s one and t h e same with t h e p e r f e c t i o n of i t s outward form. Such is t h e l i f e , such t h e f o r m . . . ( C ~ ~ 68).

Information i s t h e gene t i c p r i n c i p l e of t ransformation;

t h e process of metamorphosis i s one and t h e same with t h e

p e r f e c t i o n of i t s outward form. The c h a r a c t e r s of Shakes-

p e a r e ' s p lays , as f igured languages of poe t i c thought,

p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s " l a w . " And t h e term " l a w " br ings us

t o t h e realm of Coler idge ' s placement of method wi th in

t h e a c t i v i t y of poe t i c thought .

Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m i s ess . en t i a l ly judgment, i n

t h e manner i n which t h e word c r i t i c i s m der ives from kr ino ,

t o judge. The t h i n g t o which judgment r e f e r s , e i t h e r

i m p l i c i t l y o r e x p l i c i t l y , i s l a w . The symbolic a c t of

judgment i s ba lancing and i t s most e x q u i s i t e form i s ab-

s o l u t e equipoise , t h e equipoise t h a t Coleridge s e e s as

both t h e d e r i v a t i v e and p roc rea t ive c e n t e r of poe t i c

thought , i n s o f a r as it balances and r e c o n c i l e s d iscor-

dant q u a l i t i e s . But such equipoise i s no t t o be confused

with stasis o r suspension; on t h e con t ra ry , t h e balanced

s c a l e s each con ta in t h e f u l l and i n t e g r a l q u a l i t i e s of

each p o l a r i t y o r con t ra ry they " reconci le ." And. t o

r e p e a t , " t h e apprehension of p o l a r i t y is i t s e l f t h e bas ic

a c t of imagination." So t h a t Coler idge ' s concern t o

r e l a t e " l a w " t o "method" i n t h e imaginat ive a c t , and- to

t a k e t h e s e concerns d i r e c t l y t o h i s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare,

i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e formulat ion of a n ethos which i s a b l e

t o hold an imagination of l a w wi th in i t s o rde r ing v i s i o n .

I n t h e widest sense ethos means a c h a r a c t e r as wel l as

t h e behavior emanating from one 's c h a r a c t e r , and impli-

c a t i o n s about two kinds of l a w become immediately appar-

en t : t h a t which i s imposed upon, and t h a t which i s t h e

outgrowth o f , t h e inner n a t u r e of a th ing , whether sub-

j e c t i v e o r ob jec t ive . Coler idge says "no work of t r u e

genius da re want i t s appropr ia t e form; n e i t h e r indeed is

t h e r e any danger of t h i s . A s it must n o t , so n e i t h e r

can it , be lawless1 For it i s even t h i s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s

i t s genius -- t h e power of a c t i n g c r e a t i v e l y under laws

of i t s own o r i g i n a t i o n " (CWS 6 7 ) . Shakespeare, as a

d ramat i s t , does no t produce p lays which f u l f i l t h e de-

mands of t h e c l a s s i c a l u n i t i e s of t ime and space, but

Coler idge no tes t h a t as a kind of l a w , t h e s e u n i t i e s

were a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e i r way t o t h e demands and l i m i -

t a t i o n s of t h e c l a s s i c a l s t a g e -- t h e ever-present chorus,

t h e absence of a c u r t a i n , t h e s i z e of t h e t h e a t r e i t s e l f p

and s o f o r t h . I n implied r e p l y t o D r . Johnson who re -

f e r r e d t o Shakespeare 's "dev ia t ions from t h e ar t of

writ ing"43 -- t h a t i s , dev ia t ions from t h e Sophoclean norm -

-- and t o Johnson's contemporaries who presumed Shakes-

peare ' s "wild i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , " Coler idge maintains t h a t

t h e p lays of Shakespeare a r e ana log ies of t h e Greeks

"because by very d i f f e r e n t means they a r r i v e a t t h e same

endn (CWS 83). The means a r e those of imagination i t s e l f

and Coleridge proposes t h e presence of a "un i ty of fee l inge1

i n Shakespeare 's p lays , inasmuch as they a r e "romantic

poet ry r e v e a l i n g i t s e l f i n t h e drama" (CWS j l ) t

. . . the romantic poet ry , t h e Shakespearian drama, appealed t o t h e imagination r a t h e r than t o t h e senses , and t o t h e reason as contemplating our inward n a t u r e , t h e workings of t h e a s s i o n s i n t h e i r most r e t i r e d r e c e s s e s (CWS 52 7 .

Remember here Coler idge ' s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t i n poet ry ,

passion i t s e l f i m i t a t e s o rde r , and t h e order r e s u l t i n g

produces a p leasurab le passion.

But t h e reason, as reason, i s independent o f time and space; it has no th ing t o do wi th them....The reason i s a loof from time and space; t h e imagination has an a r b i t r a r y c o n t r o l over both; and i f only t h e poet have such power of e x c i t i n g our i n t e r n a l emotions as t o make us p resen t t o t h e scene i n imagination c h i e f l y . , .

The power of poe t ry , Coler idge says i n h i s c r i t i c i s m of

The Tempest i s "by a s i n g l e word perhaps, t o i n s t i l t h a t

energy i n t o t h e mind which compels t h e imagination t o

produce t h e p i c t u r e " (CWS 212).

. , , he a c q u i r e s t h e r i g h t and p r i v i l e g e of using-t ime and space as they e x i s t i n t h e imaginat ion, obedient t o only t h e laws t h e imagination a c t s by (CWS 52) .

"Obedient only t o t h e laws t h e imagination a c t s by." The

terms " l a w t ' and "imagination" a r e f o r Coleridge i n t e r -

a c t i v e and symbiotic ( i , e . , p o l a r ) energies , whose s y n t h e s i s

i s v i a b l y p resen t i n a ghaenomenon o r " thing" such as a

p lay of Shakespeare 's , a human body, a t r e e , o r an imago,

I n Shakespeare 's imagination, as i n a l l phenomena of

n a t u r e , "every form i s t r u e , everyth ing has r e a l i t y f o r

i ts foundat ion ," f o r "such i s t h e l i f e , such t h e form.

Nature, t h e prime gen ia l a r t is t , inexhaus t ib le i n d i v e r s e

powers, i s equa l ly inexhaus t ib le i n forms" (CWS 68) .

The s p i r i t of poet ry , l i k e a l l o t h e r l i v i n g powers, must of n e c e s s i t y circumscribe i t s e l f by r u l e s , were it only t o u n i t e power wi th beauty, It must embody i n order t o r e v e a l i t s e l f ; but a l i v i n g body is of n e c e s s i t y an organized one,-- and what i s o rgan iza t ion , but t h e connection of p a r t s t o a whole, s o t h a t each p a r t is a t once ends and means! This i s no discovery of c r i t i c i s m ; it is a n e c e s s i t y of t h e human mind -- and a l l n a t i o n s have f e l t and obeyed it, i n t h e invent ion of metre and measured sounds as t h e v e h i c l e and involucrwn of poetry; i t s e l f a fellow-growth from t h e same l i f e , even as t h e bark i s t o t h e t r e e " (CWS 67) .

Notice t h a t Coler idge says t h a t it i s t h e " s p i r i t of

poetry" and no t poet ry o r t h e poem i t s e l f , t h a t by neces-

s i t y circumscribes i t s e l f by r u l e s . And t h e s p i r i t - o f

poet ry r e s i d i n g wi th in t h e mind of t h e poet i s transposed

t o r e s i d e wi th in ("impregnates") t h e poet ry he makes, i n

order t o touch t h e s p i r i t of poet ry r e s i d i n g i n t h e mind

of i t s r e a d e r ,

So l ikewise , w h i l s t it r e c a l l s t h e s i g h t s and sounds t h a t had accompanied t h e occasions of t h e o r i g i n a l pass ions , poet ry impregnates them with an i n t e r e s t n o t t h e i r own by means of t h e pass ions , and y e t tempers t h e passion by t h e calming power which a l l d i s t i n c t images e x e r t on t h e human soul . I n t h i s way poet ry i s t h e p repara t ion f o r a r t inasmuch as it a v a i l s i t s e l f of t h e forms of n a t u r e t o r e c a l l , t o express and t o modify t h e thoughts and f e e l i n g s of t h e mind ,44

Coler idge never f o r g e t s t h e human minds of Shakespeare 's

audience, n o t because of a personal i n t e r e s t i n mass

psychology, but because of t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e of know-

ledge as an agency a c t i n g upon t h e known. Unlike D r ,

Johnson's imagined s p e c t a t o r s of Shakespeare's p lays ,

who i n t h e first p lace were t h e "barbarous" products of

a "barbarous and who cont inue t o a t t e n d Shakes-

pea re ' s p lays i n order t o observe " j u s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

of genera l n a t u r e , t'46 Coler idge ' s pro jec ted a u d i t o r s

( i n t h e f irst p lace t h e products of a "heroic" age) a r e

t h e penera i n t e n s e l y ind iv idua l i zed i n h i s own response

t o t h e p lays , Indeed it has been both remarked and d i s -

puted t h a t Coler idge is t h e i d e a l audience of Shakespear-

ean drama. I n s o f a r as t h e s e concerns revolve around t h e

double l o c a t i o n of Coler idge ' s c r i t i c a l s t ance , I w i l l

t a k e them up i n t h e more s p e c i f i c con tex t s o f fe red by

King Lear and The Tempest,

"The s p i r i t of poetry,..must c i rcumscribe i t s e l f by

r u l e s " a t t h e same t ime, and i n o rde r t o , "appeal t o our

imagination, our passions and our sympathy" (CWS 93) .

Having dec lared t h a t Shakespeare w a s a I t t rue poet , "

Coler idge goes on t o de f ine t h e common denominator of

t h a t cond i t ion ; "One c h a r a c t e r a t t a c h e s t o a l l t r u e

poets t they w r i t e from a p r i n c i p l e wi th in , independent

of everyth ing without" (CWS 93). What t h e imaginat ive

p r i n c i p l e i s independent o f , Coler idge has t o l d us , i s

time and space as mechanical r e g u l a r i t y and shapings

"superinduced." The laws of imagination, on t h e o the r

hand, a r e grounded i n what Coleridge c a l l s "Method,"

Method reaches i n t o t h e deepes t sources of Coler idge 's

experience of t h e processes of imagination: and as an

a c t i v i t y , method is t h e a r t i c u l a b l e "sciencett of organic

form, "Form [is a] proceeding" and method (methodos)

means l i t e r a l l y a way o r pa th of t r a n s i t , I n h i s "Prin-

c i p l e s of t h e Science of Method" Coleridge a s s e r t s t h a t

"as without continuous t r a n s i t i o n t h e r e can be no method,

without a - preconception t h e r e can be no t r a n s i t i o n

without c o n t i n u i t y . The term, method, can n o t t h e r e f o r e

. , ,be app l i ed t o a mere dead arrangement, con ta in ing i n

i t s e l f no p r i n c i p l e of progression. '47 Coleridge 's

r ecogn i t ion of method i n Shakespeare 's thought f i n d s

expression i n h i s c e n t r a l premise t h a t Shakespeare's

judgment i s equal t o h i s genius, The vocabulary r e v e a l s

aga in t h e concerns of balance and l a w , and I have a l r eady

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e law Coler idge means i s e thos , Coler-

idge ' s sense of method, then , i s p r imar i ly e t h i c a l , and

when he f i n d s Shakespeare d e f i c i e n t i n form it i s usua l ly

because of what Coleridge perce ives t o be an absence of

t h e e t h i c a l . Coler idge ' s "method" i s n o t t o be understood

as simple i n t e n t i o n , o r t h e e f f o r t t o organize f ixed and

known s u b j e c t s o r o b j e c t s i n t o a new arrangement. This

i s t h e realm of Fancy, a term Coler idge uses t o s e t t h e

product-arranging processes of t h e memory a p a r t from t h e

lif e-producing processes of t h e imagination, ttThe Fancy

must r e c e i v e a l l i t s m a t e r i a l s ready made from t h e l a w of

associa t ion"48 Coleridge says i n appendation t o h i s def-

i n i t i o n of Imagination. But while t h e Fancy i s an

" i n f e r i o r " mode of imagination only i n terms of r e l a t i v e

v i t a l i t y of process , it i s y e t necessary and p resen t as

t h e "drapery" of poet ry (CWS 35).

F u l l g e n t l y now she t a k e s him by t h e hand, A l i l y pr i son 'd i n a gaol of snow, O r ivory i n an a l a b a s t e r band! So white a f r i e n d e n g i r t s so white a f o e ,

(cws 5 6 )

This i s Coler idge ' s i l l u s t r a t i o n of Fancy from Shakespeare 's

"Venus and Adonis," wherein Fancy i s "considered as t h e

f a c u l t y of b r ing ing toge the r images d i s s i m i l a r i n t h e main

by some one po in t o r more of l i k e n e s s dis t inguishedn(Cws 5 6 ) .

So t h a t Fancy i s only n o t i o n a l l y p a r t i c i p a n t i n Method,

a by-product and no t a source , The secondary Imagination,

on t h e o t h e r hand, is t h e a c t i v e agent of method i t s e l f .

Unlike t h e Fancy, it does n o t simply "br ing together" bu t

a c t s upon phenomena, and Coler idge 's d e f i n i t i o n of secon-

dary Imagination i s a p l e t h o r a of a c t i v e verbst "It

d i s s o l v e s , d i f f u s e s , d i s s i p a t e s , i n o rde r t o r e -c rea te . . ,

it s t r u g g l e s t o i d e a l i z e and t o un i fy , " Method is involved

i n both t h e d i s s o l u t i o n and t h e r e -c rea t ion , f o r t h e imag-

i n a t i o n d i s s o l v e s order to r e c r e a t e , o r it s t r u g g l e s

i n o rde r to un i fy and i d e a l i z e , I n t h i s way, t h e secon- - dary Imagination i s d i s t ingu i shed from both t h e primary

Imagination and Fancy by t h e degree t o which Method i s

p resen t i n i t s a c t i v i t y , The primary Imagination perce ives ,

while t h e percept ion of secondary Imagination con ta ins a

pe rcep t , an i n i a t i v e , a " p r i n c i p l e of progression" and

t h e r e f o r e t h e immanence of Method. I have e a r l i e r in-

d ica ted how Coler idge p laces method i n t h i s sense wi th in

t h e p o e t ' s imaginat ion, The power of imagination t o a c t

c r e a t i v e l y under laws of i t s own o r i g i n a t i o n means t h a t

"genius, ' l as a q u a l i t y of thought , is both contained and

nourished by method. ( ~ e n i u s e n t e r s t h e a d j e c t i v e "genial"

as Coler idge d e f i n e s h i s p r i n c i p l e s of "genia l c r i t i c i s m . " )

Method i t s e l f i s revealed i n judgment, and a b s o l u t e l y

c o n s i s t e n t t o p r i n c i p l e , Coler idge d e c l a r e s i n h i s c r i t i c i s m

of The Tempest t h a t Shakespeare 's "genius r e v e a l s i t s e l f

i n h i s judgement as i n i t s most exa l t ed form," We can

summarily s t a t e , then , t h a t Coleridge proposes a method

t h a t is i n n a t e t o t h e processes of poe t i c imagination a t

t h e same time t h a t it i s an emanation from those same

processes , Being, as it i s , so v i t a l l y cent red i n t h e

n a t u r e of e thos , Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare is

e s s e n t i a l l y an ethology. S ince Coler idge 's method i s n o t

a s e t of r u l e s (e.g., temporal and s p a t i a l u n i t y ) t o be

imposed upon p o e t i c thought from a r a t i o n a l a e s t h e t i c

o u t s i d e it and in imica l t o its d i f f u s i n g processes , it

can even appear by a process of e l imina t ion t o be etho-

l o g i c a l . Ethos f i n d s pragmatic expression i n organic

form; "it shapes as it develops i t s e l f from wi th in , and

t h e f u l l n e s s of i t s development i s one and t h e same with

t h e p e r f e c t i o n of i t s outward form." Ethos r e q u i r e s -

i m i t a t i o n and n o t copy t o r e v e a l i t s e l f ; " the a r t i s t

must i m i t a t e t h a t which is wi th in t h e th ing , t h a t which

is a c t i v e through form and f igure . . . t he Natur-geis t , o r

s p i r i t of n a t u r e , as we unconsciously i m i t a t e those whom

we love . That which we love t h e most, and which loves

us t h e most, " t h e s p i r i t of na ture" o r t h e i m i t a t i o n which

i s t h e human imaginat ion, i s t h e apotheos is of e thos i n - method t

I have t h u s assigned t h e f i r s t p l ace i n t h e sc ience of method t o law; and first of t h e first, t o law, as t h e a b s o l u t e kind which, comprehending i n i t s e l f t h e substance of every p o s s i b l e degree, precludes from its conception a l l degree, n o t by genera l i za t ion , bu t by i t s own p len i tude . A s such...I contemplate it as exc lus ive ly an a t t r i b u t e of t h e Supreme Being, inseparab le from t h e i d e a of God; adding, however, t h a t from t h e contemplation of law i n t h i s i t s only p e r f e c t form, must be der ived a l l t r u e i n s i g h t i n t o a l l o the r grounds and p r i n c i p l e s necessary t o method, as t h e sc ience common t o a l l s c i e n c e s . . . . ~ 0

And e thos mul t ip l i ed i n t o forms "from Othel lo and Macbeth

down t o Dogberry and t h e Grave-digger" i s t h e human popu-

l a t i o n of Shakespeare 's p lays , h i s c h a r a c t e r s , those

" i d e a l r ea l i t i e s . . .wh ich a g r e a t mind t akes i n t o i t s e l f

and t h e r e n a t u r a l i z e s them t o i ts own conception'' (CWS 86).

When Coler idge says t h a t poe t ry must embody i n order t o

r e v e a l i t s e l f and when he says t h a t a r t i s t h e f igured

language of thought , we can look a t a poem and apprehend

i t s symbols i n t h i s way as consubs tan t i a t ion . O r w e can

look t o Shakespeare 's p lays and s e e t h e c h a r a c t e r s a c t i n g ,

speaking and be ing ac ted upon as l i t e r a l embodiments

which r e v e a l , and as a c t u a l f i g u r e s and f igured languages,

of Shakespeare 's thought. Shakespeare 's c r e a t i o n of

c h a r a c t e r s as a n imaginat ive a c t , as we l l as t h e c h a r a c t e r s

themselves as s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s with a l i f e of

t h e i r own, l o c a t e s e thos i n both as p r e c i s e l y as \

r e i f i c a t i o n rhymes with d e i f i c a t i o n , f o r "Nature i t s e l f

is t o a r e l i g i o u s observer t h e ar t of God. "51 A r t i s

a n i m i t a t i o n of n a t u r e ; t h e drama i s an i m i t a t i o n of t h e

r e a l i t y we c a l l human na tu re ; and "man's mind i s t h e very

focus of a l l t h e r a y s of i n t e l l e c t which a r e s c a t t e r e d

throughout t h e images of na tu re . "52 This is t h e d i a l e c t i c

of e thology; and Coler idge 's thought is d i a l e c t i c a l wi th in

t h e realm of metaphor o r poe t i c thought. Inasmuch as

poe t i c thought i s manifested i n t h e drama, it presupposes

t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n premise t h a t t h e drama is an i m i t a t i o n

of a n a c t i o n . Coler idge says that " t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e

drama i s involved i n i t s name. Ins tead of simply n a r r a t i n g

t h e a c t i o n s of men, it r e p r e s e n t s men a c t i n g ; o r i f it

n a r r a t e s , it i s n a r r a t i v e i n r ep resen ta t ion" (CWS 44) .

The word drama i s derived from t h e Greek drao, t o do; t o

a c t , and when Coler idge speaks of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of men

a c t i n g he means it i n t h e sense of i m i t a t i o n . We need

no t a t t e n d a p lay i n order t o see people a c t i n g ; we need

only be a l i v e and l i v i n g our l i v e s i n order t o observe t h e

a c t i o n s of people. When we choose t o s e e a p lay , Coleridge

says , "it is t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of it, n o t t h e r e a l i t y ,

t h a t we r e q u i r e , , t h e i m i t a t i o n and no t t h e t h i n g i t s e l f ;

and we pronounce it good o r bad i n propor t ion as t h e rep-

r e s e n t a t i o n i s a n i n c o r r e c t , o r a c o r r e c t imi ta t ion . tt 53

I n h i s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare's p lays , Coler idge maintains

t h a t we go t o s e e a p lay because "we choose t o be deceived"

(CWS 202), and t h e decept ion he means involves t h e " w i l l -

i n g suspension of d i s b e l i e f f o r t h e moment, t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s

p o e t i c f a i t h . tt54 My d i scuss ion of King Lear and The

Tempest w i l l i ncorpora te t h e s e i s s u e s i n t o an a c t i v e con-

t e x t .

Having attempted t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Coleridge' s

c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare is an ethology, I must q u a l i f y

my a s s e r t i o n by s t a t i n g a l s o t h a t Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m

a t i t s b e s t i s an ethology as I have j u s t descr ibed it. --- Coleridge repea ted ly s t a t e s t h a t h i s c r i t i c i s m of Shakes-

peare i s f o r purposes of i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e s of

method, i n o rde r t o prove t h a t Shakespeare 's judgment i s

equal t o h i s genius. I am d e l i b e r a t e l y p u t t i n g a s i d e t h e

f a c t t h a t t h i s body of c r i t i c i s m we possess i n t h e form -

of a composite whole, i s only a composite whole, a piecing-

toge the r of fragments t h e l a r g e ma jo r i ty of which Coleridge

himself d id no t even submit f o r pub l i ca t ion . I r e f e r

t h e r e a d e r t o t h e Appendix f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of t e x t u a l

problems but he re I wish t o dea l wi th Coler idge 's Shakes-

pearean c r i t i c i s m simply as ex tan t canon. A s canon, t h i s

c r i t i c i s m is c o n s i s t e n t wi th i t s declared p r i n c i p l e s and

i n t e n t i o n s , and t h e first chap te r of Coler idge 's "Prin-

c i p l e s of t h e Science of Nethod" i n The Friend ( w r i t t e n

contemporaneously with t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e 1811-12

l e c t u r e s on Shakespeare) i s devoted almost exc lus ive ly

t o quo ta t ions from t h e speeches of Shakespeare 's charac-

t e r s , and a r e meant t o i l l u s t r a t e e i t h e r t h e presence o r

t h e absence of Method i n t h e i r content and syntax. My

po in t i s t h a t Coler idge 's very cons is tency i n apply ing

t o Shakespeare 's drama what can be reduced t o i l l u s t r a t i o n s

of judgment, o f t e n r e s u l t s i n a reduc t ion o f , i f no t an

imposi t ion upon, Shakespeare 's t e x t . And i n a c r i t i c i s m

which purpor t s t o d i s c l o s e organic form, a discrepancy

between Coler idge 's theory and h i s p r a c t i s e emerges. If

Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m i s ethology, it i s a l s o judgment;

and t h e judgment i n t u r n can f o r c e t h e e t h i c of methodology

i n t o t h e b l a t a n t d idac t ic i sm of C h r i s t i a n e t h i c s and codes

of behaviour . Coleridge i s morally o f f ended, f o r example,

by Goneril and Regan i n King Lear, and h i s moral outrage

i s f e l t so profoundly t h a t it overwhelms h i s a e s t h e t i c

percept ions . Measure f o r Measure i s l ikewise dismissed

as "a h a t e f u l playW(CWS 249). But t h e r e a r e o f t e n v a l i d

and v i a b l e reasons f o r Coler idge 's e t h i c a l admonitions

a g a i n s t Shakespeare; and I s h a l l d i s c u s s t h e s e i n my

fo l lowing chapter .

A s t e n t a t i v e conclusion, then , it seems t o me f r u i t -

l e s s e i t h e r t o a t t a c k o r t o defend Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m

of Shakespeare on t h e b a s i s of whether o r no t it i s

wpsychological* c r i t i c i s m , and whether o r no t h i s charac-

t e r c r i t i c i s m i s a func t ion and a presuppos i t ion of h i s

sense of form. I have at tempted t o show, t a k i n g as my

depar tu re po in t Coler idge 's sense of form, t h a t Coler idge 's

c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare i s by n e c e s s i t y a c r i t i c i s m of

c h a r a c t e r i n s o f a r as ethos means both a c h a r a c t e r and t h e

forms of behaviour emanating from one's c h a r a c t e r . And

it i s obvious t h a t Shakespeare's p lays a r e t h e a c t i o n s of

c h a r a c t e r s , A s ethology, Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m i d e a l l y

holds "charac ter" and "form" i n equipoise , and t o argue

t h a t one is t h e d e r i v a t i o n of t h e o t h e r i s i n t h i s sense

t a u t o l o g i c a l . However, I say " i d e a l l y " because t h e balance

can sometimes d i p from one extreme t o t h e o the r depending

upon t h e weight Coler idge ' s judgment chooses t o conf7er,

f o r a complexity of reasons , upon one or t h e o t h e r , The

fo l lowing chap te r s a t tempt t o desc r ibe t h e s e complexi t ies .

Chapter Two

COLERIDGE ON K I N G LEAR

I have s ing led out f o r examination Coler idge 's t r e a t -

ment of King Lear and The Tempest. The reasons f o r t h i s

choice a r e va r ious and inc lude t h e occasion o f fe red t o my

own enduring i n t e r e s t i n t h e s e p lays . Another i s t h a t

they a r e among Shakespeare 's l a t e r p lays , s o t h a t we a r e

e x t r i c a t e d from t h e kinds of concerns which surround e a r l y

o r i n c i p i e n t genius ; t h e f a c t of i t s e l f , i t s h a b i t s , ex-

c e s s e s and wants. Surrounding t h e r ecogn i t ion of l a t e r

o r e s t ab l i shed genius a r e s i m i l a r l y q u a l i t a t i v e concerns,

but here we a r e involved wi th a sense of wonder which

s p a r e s u s t h e cons ide ra t ions of novel ty and of beginnings

i n t h e ord inary sense. Coleridge f i n d s t h e formal compo-

s i t i o n of The Tempest t o be e x q u i s i t e ; he i s s i m i l a r l y

enchanted with ins tances of t h e composition of King Lear.

"Lear - i s t h e most tremendous e f f o r t of Shakespeare as a

p o e t " ( ~ W ~ 167) , Coleridge says , and he acknowledges t h e

g r e a t degree t o which t h e poet and t h e dramat is t a r e

"blended" i n t h i s

t o King Lear as a

and h i s c r i t i c i s m

play. Yet Coler idge ' s c r i t i c a l response

whole is r a t h e r cursory and d i f f i d e n t ;

of The Tempest, d e s p i t e t h e eloquent

l y r i c i s m of i t s p r a i s e s , i s l a c k i n g a t t h e l e v e l of exeges is ,

It i s my purpose, t h e r e f o r e , t o c r i t i c i z e Coler idge ' s

c r i t i c i s m of t h e s e two p lays because they seem t o me t o

epitomize, both i n terms of t h e i r content and of Coler idge 's

response t o t h a t con ten t , t h e s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of

a c r i t i c i s m t h a t i s never the less d i s t ingu i shed by t h e

sub l imi ty of i t s informing concerns. This i s n o t , however,

t o c r e d i t Coler idge with sublime i n t e n t i o n a t every l e v e l ,

nor t o evade t h e f a c t t h a t h i s purposes a r e as much t o

i n s t r u c t i n t h e Mil tonic sense of " j u s t i f i e " as they a r e

t o i l l u s t r a t e . The p a r t i c u l a r c a r e Coleridge t a k e s with

Hamlet, f o r i n s t a n c e , i s a t l e a s t p a r t l y informed by

na rc i s s i sm ("I have a smack of Hamlet myself, i f I may

say so...") but more largely informed by t h e playas

approachab i l i ty and its i n t e r n a l and psychological coher-

ence. In h i s c r i t i c i s m of King Lear Coleridge is p r imar i ly

concerned with t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of v i l l a i n y and with

c e r t a i n admonitions t o Shakespeare regarding h i s une th ica l

p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e n a t u r e of e v i l i n h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n

of Goneril and Regan. Coler idge ' s concern wi th e t h i c s i s

t i e d t o t h e r a d i c a l meaning of t h a t condi t ion a s ethos

o r c h a r a c t e r , and f o r Coler idge a c h a r a c t e r i s a success-

f u l i m i t a t i o n of n a t u r e ( r e a l i t y ) i n s o f a r as h i s ac tcons

a r e r e l a t i v e , e i t h e r p o s i t i v e l y o r nega t ive ly , t o t h e

e t h i c a l . I s h a l l p o s i t , l a t e r , t h e reasons f o r t h i s ac-

cording t o t h e scheme put forward by t h e c r i t i c a l con tex t s

of King Lear and The Tempest.

The Tempest e n t e r s by way of c o n t r a s t , and i t s

p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s w i l l be examined i n Chapter Three. It i s

noteworthy here , however, t h a t t h e ease and p leasure with

which Coler idge a r t i c u l a t e s t h e movement of The Tempest

is only u n c e r t a i n l y p resen t f o r King Lear, and t h e mood

extends i t s e l f i n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of t h e p lays -- f o r example, h i s apprehension of what Caliban is sur-

passes h i s understanding of who t h e Fool is. But gener-

a l l y speaking, one must t a k e i n t o account Coler idge ' s

i n s i s t e n c e on h i s own behal f t h a t " i l l u s t r a t i o n of pr in-

c i p l e s is my main o b j e c t ; t h e r e f o r e I am no t so d i g r e s s i v e

as might appear" (CWS 47). Coleridge might a l s o have

explained t h a t he was n o t so exclus ive as might appear,

s i n c e it i s t h e exclus ions and n o t t h e d ig ress ions which

produce t h e major e f f e c t on t h e p lay i n t h e r educ t ive

sense. I t is important t o understand, however, t h a t

t h e e x t a n t t e x t of Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of King Lear i s

composed of manuscript n o t e s , margina l ia , fragments of

conversa t ion and r e p r i n t s from t h e L i t e r a r y Remains,

There i s no coherent t e x t such as t h a t we possess f o r The Tempest i n t h e form of Coler idge ' s l e c t u r e n o t e s and - J . P. C o l l i e r ' s t r a n s c r i p t i o n of a l e c t u r e . Coleridge

t h e r e f o r e cannot be adjured f o r t h e fragmentary o r p a r t i s a n

n a t u r e of a c r i t i c i s m which i s i t s e l f only a posthumously

e d i t e d c o l l e c t i o n of fragments. What Coler idge might have

said about Kina Lear i n a l e c t u r e o r i n a s p e c i f i c essay

is a mat ter of conjec ture , y e t t h e fragments we do possess

have i n common a tone of moral dismay coupled a t t imes

wi th almost speechless admirat ion, Whatever I say about

Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of King Lear de r ives from a sense

of Coler idge 's ambivalence about t h e play, and I would

fur thermore venture t o suggest t h a t t h e profundi ty of

t h i s ambivalence is such t h a t it would be only more

q u a n t i t a t i v e l y present i n a d e f i n i t i v e c r i t i c a l s ta tement .

Fur the r accounting o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between

Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of King Lear and t h a t of The Tempest

would of course inc lude t h e f a c t t h a t t h e ambience of

The Tempest is of a d i f f e r e n t o rde r than t h a t of King Lear,

and t h a t t h e i r be ing r e s p e c t i v e l y comedy and t ragedy has

much t o do wi th it. We need only t o acknowledge t h e d i f -

fe rence between t h e f e e l i n g s of awe and dread, o r between

wonder and f e a r , i n o rde r t o acknowledge a t t h e same time

t h e enormous and y e t tenuous d i f f e r e n c e between t h e mar-

ve lous and t h e excess ive ly mundane; t h e r e a l and t h e

i r r e a l ; ' comedy and tragedy. I n t h e s e p lays t h e p o l a r i t i e s

of c r e a t i o n and d e s t r u c t i o n a r e a c t i v e and emergent w i t h i n

t h e t y i n g and unty ing of human bonds. Throughout, we

somehow understand t h a t c rea t ion i s its teleology, and

t h a t t h e image of c rea t ion , a l s o as the first divine a c t ,

has i ts co ro l l a ry i n t h e necess i ty t h a t human r e l a t i on -

sh ip should image divine grace -- "Be merciful as your

Father is merciful ," ' The reader w i l l here remember

Prospero8s epilogue i n The Tempest and t h e abuses of

c h a r i t y and mercy as forms of love i n King Lear. King

Lear achieves i ts end by mut i la t ion; The Tempest by magic, - bu t redemption is the form they share at t h e i r endings,

That Coleridge responded with g rea t e r pleasure t o The Tempest than he did t o King Lear i s only an ind ica t ion

of h i s human sentiments, but h i s deep dismay with regard

t o some of t he characters and inc iden ts i n kin^ Lear

pervades h i s c r i t i c a l overview, H i s recognit ion of t h e

"organic wholeness" of these plays becomes a ce lebra t ion

of t h e harmony of The Tempest, bu t i n King Lear t he

pecu l ia r e v i l of Goneril and Regan seems t o th rea ten o r

defy organic wholeness i t s e l f , But again, The Tempest i s

a play i n which the charac te rs cont inual ly ce lebra te t h e

event of t h e i r own being, and no matter how offensive o r

even v i l l a inous t he forms of t h i s ce lebra t ion take, none

of t h e charac te rs a r e consumed by the kind of in t rospec t ive

se l f - loa th ing t h a t is present i n t he major charac te rs of

Kina Lear, and t h a t both encompasses and seems t o cause

t h e genera l ca tas t rophe t h e p lay enac t s , Coler idge 's

genera l c r i t i c a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n wi th u n j u s t i f i e d e v i l and

unexpected ca tas t rophe i s as a e s t h e t i c as it is moral, but

on t h e o t h e r hand it is only t r u i s t i c t o s t a t e as explana-

t i o n t h a t Coler idge ' s a e s t h e t i c s a r e " in t ima te ly r e l a t e d

t o h i s moral va lues . "' The f a c t i s t h a t Coleridge is

caught i n an ends-means, form-content dilemma i n h i s

c r i t i c i s m of King Lear -- a;play which furthermore t r o u b l e s

t h e Kantian c a t e g o r i c a l imperat ive t h a t persons be t r e a t e d

as ends and not means. I regard t h e presence of Coler idge 's

moral va lues i n h i s a e s t h e t i c s as both i l l u m i n a t i v e and

d e l i m i t i n g ; and as both analogous t o and t h e cause of

h i s d i f f i d e n c e toward King Lear.

I n a paper e n t i t l e d "Coleridge on Shakespeare's

V i l l a i n s " Sylvan Barnet a s c r i b e s Coler idge 's defensive

a t t i t u d e toward v i l l a i n y t o t h e " o p t i m i s t i c w s p i r i t of

romanticism which a long wi th c e r t a i n o the r " fea tu res" i s

"incompatible wi th t h e t r a g i c view. #l3 Optimism and

pessimism a r e s u r e l y small t h i n g s which r e f e r t o small

t h i n g s , and t ragedy d e c l i n e s t h e i r f a v o r s by t h e enormity

of a g e s t u r e which has noth ing t o do wi th t h e i n c l i n a t i o n s

of t h i s o r t h a t genre. Barnet ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t romantic-

i s m l e a v e s l i t t l e room f o r t h e "powers of darkness" and

t h a t t h e " p r i n c i p l e of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of oppos i tes [e.g.,

good and evi l ] . i s fa ta l t o tragedy1*' r e v e a l s an under-

l y i n g assumption t h a t t ragedy r e p r e s e n t s t h e triumph of

e v i l -- an equat ion which might have i n t e r e s t e d Coleridge

bu t c e r t a i n l y n o t one he would propose i n such a c a v a l i e r

manner, i f only because dramatic forms a r e a r t forms,

Evi l i s admitted bu t t h e t e l e o l o g i c a l d i r e c t i o n of both

t ragedy and comedy is t o c r e a t e o r r e c r e a t e t h e condi t ions

h o s p i t a b l e t o t h e good, It i s t h e profoundly moral

func t ion of a r t t o do t h i s , Means and ends a r e i n t e g r a t e d ,

f o r dea th ( i n t ragedy) n e c e s s i t a t e s a r e b i r t h of order ,

and marriage ( i n comedy) proposes t h e f r u i t i o n of o rde r ,

By "order" I mean what i s o n t o l o g i c a l l y sound, t h a t i s t o

say, t h e c o n s t r u c t s of human l i f e which imagine themselves

t o be r e f l e c t i o n s of d iv ine c o n s t r u c t , Order i s a l s o

p a r t i c i p a n t i n no t ions of good and e v i l r j u s t as unordered

good i s inconsequent ia l (Hamlet), unordered e v i l ( i , e , ,

e v i l f o r i t s own sake, without causa l r e fe rence t o an

e x t e r n a l o rde r ) i s without meaning, And it is important

t o Coler idge t h a t we n o t pass ive ly accept t h e no t ion of

e v i l as meaningless, Thus Coler idge ' s in t ima t ion t h a t

Shakespeare had abdica ted a c e r t a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o h i s -

audience i n h i s p o r t r a y a l of Goneril and Regan:

[shakespearel had read n a t u r e too heedful ly no t t o know t h a t courage, i n t e l l e c t and s t r e n g t h of c h a r a c t e r were t h e most impressive forms of power,

and t h a t t o power i n i t s e l f , without r e fe rence t o any moral end, an i n e v i t a b l e admirat ion and com- placency apper ta ins , , , .Bu t i n t h e d i s p l a y of such a c h a r a c t e r it was of t h e h ighes t importance t o pre- ven t t h e g u i l t from pass ing i n t o u t t e r monstrosi ty -- which aga in depends upon t h e presence o r absence of causes and tempta t ions s u f f i c i e n t t o account f o r t h e wickedness, without t h e n e c e s s i t y of r e - c u r r i n g t o a thorough f i end i shness of n a t u r e f o r i t s o r i g i n a t i o n . (CWS 181)

The comparison wi th Goneril and Regan i s i m p l i c i t i n t h i s

s ta tement about Edmund, whose i n t e l l i g e n c e is as ext ra-

ord inary as h i s malice. But Edmund, un l ike Goneril and

Regan, i s n o t monstrous; we a r e n o t forced t o presuppose,

as Coler idge sugges ts , a thorough f i end i shness of n a t u r e

t o account f o r h i s wickedness. I n t h e C h r i s t i a n scheme

it i s argued t h a t even Satan has hope of redemption, and

even Satan has b e t t e r cause f o r h i s wickedness than Goneril

and Regan have, t h a t being, u l t i m a t e l y , jealousy of God.

So Edmund, and h i s jealousy of h i s b r o t h e r ' s leg i t imacy

of b i r t h , and h i s d e s i r e t o t ranscend, by any means, t h e

"baseness" of h i s own conception;

I grow, I prosper , Now, gods, s tand up f o r bas ta rds .

( I , i i , 2 1 - 2 2 ) 5

Coleridge c i t e s Iago as a thoroughly wicked c h a r a c t e r

whose wickedness i s never the less redeemable by t h e f a c t

t h a t he was Shakespeare 's own c r e a t i o n , an invent ion ,

and t h u s "perhaps t h e most a s t o n i s h i n g proof of h i s genius

and t h e opulence of i ts resourcesW(CW~ 181) . However,

i n King Lear, i n which Shakespeare was compelled t o p resen t

a Goneri l and Regan because of t h e demands of h i s h i s t o r -

i c a l source , "it w a s most c a r e f u l l y t o be avoided" t h a t

t h e i r w i l l f u l and cor rup t power be coupled with t h e i r

unaccountably wicked n a t u r e s , Coler idge is mainly con-

cerned t o p r o t e c t t h e i n t e g r a l n a t u r e of p o e t i c t r u t h ,

" for such a r e t h e appointed r e l a t i o n s of i n t e l l e c t u a l

power t o t r u t h , and of t r u t h t o goodness, t h a t it becomes

both morally and p o e t i c a l l y unsafe t o p resen t what i s

admirable -- what our n a t u r e compels us t o admire -- i n

t h e mind, and what is most d e t e s t a b l e i n t h e h e a r t , as

co-ex i s t ing i n t h e same i n d i v i d u a l without any apparent

connect ion o r any modif ica t ion of t h e one by t h e other"

(CWS 1 8 1 ) . J u s t a s t h e Thomist e t h i c p o s i t s t h a t e v i l

is t h e g r e a t e r and g r e a t e r depr iva t ion of t h e good,

Coler idge ' s e t h i c proposes t h a t i n t h e realm of good

and e v i l , no th ing comes of noth ing -- ex n i h i l o , n i h i l fit.

Edmund's baseness i s t r a c e a b l e t o t h e circumstances of

h i s b i r t h which a r e c a r e f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d a t t h e beginning -

of t h e p lay -- debasingly a r t i c u l a t e d , according t o

Coler idge, who fur thermore assumes t h a t Edmund overhears

i Gloucester 's remarks about him i n t h e f i r s t scene of t h e PI

play. Coleridge says t h a t Edmund "hears h i s mother and

t h e circumstances of h i s b i r t h spoken of wi th a most

degrading and l i c e n t i o u s l e v i t y -- described as a wanton

by h e r own paramour, and t h e remembrance of t h e animal

s t i n g , t h e low c r imina l g r a t i f i c a t i o n s connected with

her wantonness and p r o s t i t u t e d beauty assigned as t h e

reason why ' t h e whoreson must be acknowledged' "(CWS 179) .

There i s no similar accounting o r f i r s t cause, Coleridge

says , f o r Goneril and Regan; t h e r e is nothing. The

something, t h e e v i l , proceeding from t h i s noth ing i s con-

t r a d i c t o r y t o t h e n a t u r e of how t h i n g s a r e c r e a t e d both

d i v i n e l y and humanly, i n t h e world and i n t h e p lay; and

thus Coleridge is forced t o conclude t h a t Goneril and

Regan comprise " the pure unnatural ." I w i l l r e f e r t o t h i s

l a t e r , bu t here r e t u r n t o Co le r idgees concern with t h e

opera t ive methods of a r t i s t i c judgment.

It is one of Co le r idgees p r a i s e s of Shakespeare's

p lays t h a t events a r e prepared f o r , t h a t i s t o say ,

"expecta t ion i n preference t o su rp r i ze" (CWS 99) . Coleridge

d e c l a r e s , "God s a i d , l e t t h e r e be l i g h t , and t h e r e was

l i g h t , -- n o t t h e r e was l i g h t . A s t h e f e e l i n g with which

we s t a r t l e a t a shoot ing s tar , compared with t h a t o f

watching t h e s u n r i s e a t t h e pre-es tabl i shed moment, such

and so low i s s u r p r i z e compared wi th expectation"(CWS 100) .

The jux tapos i t ion a p p l i e s as well t o h o r r i f i c events .

Coler idge p r a i s e s one of t h e beginning l i n e s of Hamlet,

"What, has t h i s t h i n g appeared aga in ton igh t?" , n o t i n g

t h a t t h e word "again" has a " c r e d i b i l i z i n g e f f e c t , "

Then t h e sh ive ry f e e l i n g , a t such a t ime, with two eye-witnesses, of s i t t i n g down t o hear a s t o r y of a ghos t , and t h i s , t o o , a ghost t h a t had appeared two n i g h t s before a t about t h i s very time. The e f f o r t of t h e n a r r a t o r t o master h i s own imaginat ive t e r r o r s ; t h e consequent e l e v a t i o n of t h e s t y l e , i t s e l f a con t inua t ion of t h i s e f f o r t ; t h e t u r n i n g off t o an outward o b j e c t , "yon same star." 0 heaven! words a r e wasted t o those t h a t f e e l and t o those who do n o t f e e l t h e e x q u i s i t e judgment of Shakespeare.

(CWS 141)

Coler idge f e e l s t h a t s i n c e Shakespeare neglec ted t o provide

similar t e x t u a l p repara t ion f o r Goneril and Regan, our

subsequent response t o them i s n e c e s s a r i l y vulgar and

i n s e n s i b l e . But Coleridge i s a rgu ing from t h e premises

of a much l a r g e r ground, t h a t of organic form o r harmony,

which a r i s e s from t h e a c t i v i t y of methodical thought and

which i n t u r n presupposes a s t a r t i n g - p o i n t i n t h e n a r r a t o r

and a p r i n c i p l e of progress ion i n t h e n a r r a t i v e . Coleridge

seeks t h i s fundamental p r i n c i p l e of momentum i n t h e

beginnings of t h e plays and he u s u a l l y f i n d s it. This

l o c a t i o n of c r i t i c a l concent ra t ion has been no t i ced by

many c r i t i c s , Sylvan Barnet among them who c h a s t i z e s

Coler idge ' s "ha l f -hear ted endeavours t o s tudy t h e t r a g i c

outcomes of t h e p lays whose opening scenes he had found

so f a s c i n a t i n g . " 6 Barnet cont inues , 'nor can t h i s l a c k

of a t t e n t i o n t o t h e ca tas t rophes be explained away by

invoking Coler idge ' s d i l a t o r y temperament, f o r t h a t t h e

problem is no t t h a t he never got t o t h e ends of t h e p lays ,

but r a t h e r t h a t he p re fe r red t o t a l k -- on t h e platform

and o f f -- about t h e i r beginnings. 11 7

My a t t e n t i o n wanders from t h e s tatement t o t h e word

" d i l a t o r y " wi th in it, Barnet i s a l l u d i n g t o Co le r idgeOs

no to r ious p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n s , but i f he had used t h e word

" d i l a t i n g " i n s t e a d of " d i l a t o r y " he might have s a i d

something u s e f u l about Coler idge 's p o e t i c s . D i l a t i n g is

expansion and c i r c u l a t i o n ; it i s a c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l l y

def ined movement outwards from a c e n t r e which con ta ins ,

both p o t e n t i a l l y and a c t u a l l y , t h e content of i t s expand-

i n g shape, The image mi r ro r s b e a u t i f u l l y Coler idge 's

conception of what method is: continuous t r a n s i t i o n from

a p r i n c i p l e of progress ion , and what organic form is:

e s s e n t i a l l y , "a se l f -wi tness ing and s e l f - e f f e c t e d sphere

of agency. '8 When Coler idge d iscovers t h i s a c t i v i t y of

method ( t h e presence of organic form) i n Shakespeare's

t e x t , he a s s e r t s t h e e q u a l i t y of ShakespeareDs genius and

h i s judgment. So, f o r The Tempest: 'Here is e x q u i s i t e

judgment -- first t h e n o i s e and confusion -- t hen t h e

s i l e n c e of a dese r t ed i s l a n d -- and Prospero and Mirandaen

The romance opens with a busy scene admirably a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e kind of drama, and giving, as it were, t h e keynote t o t h e whole harmony. It prepares and i n i t i a t e s t h e excitement requi red f o r t h e e n t i r e p iece , and y e t does n o t demand anyth ing from t h e s p e c t a t o r s which t h e i r previous h a b i t s had no t f i t t e d them t o understand. It is t h e b u s t l e of a tempest, from which t h e r e a l hor ro r s a r e abstracted. . .and i s purposely r e s t r a i n e d from concenter ing t h e i n t e r e s t on i t s e l f , bu t used merely as a n induct ion o r tun ing f o r what is t o follow.

(CWS 203-04)

But t h e only o v e r t mention made of Shakespeare's judgment

i n Kinp Lear ( and he re it i s descr ibed as 'matchlessn) is

when Coler idge remarks upon Shakespeare's handl ing of t h e

improbabi l i ty of Lear 's conduct, and even here t h e p r a i s e

of Shakespeare becomes a n occasion t o condemn Beaumont

and F l e t c h e r . " F i r s t , improbable as t h e conduct of Lear

is, i n t h e first scene, y e t it was a n o ld s t o r y , rooted

i n t h e popular f a i t h -- a t h i n g taken f o r granted a l r eady ,

and consequently without any of t h e e f f e c t s of improb-

a b i l i t y . Secondly, it is merely t h e canvas t o t h e charac-

t e r s and pass ions , a mere occasion -- n o t ( a s i n Beaumont

and ~ l e t c h e r ) pe rpe tua l ly r e c u r r i n g as t h e cause and

s i n e qua non of t h e i n c i d e n t s and emotionsn(CWS 182). - Coleridge a b s t r a c t s himself from t h e t e x t of King

Lear throughout t h i s so-ca l led " a n a l y s i s of t h e play" and - he i s disposed t o o f f e r , almost as sanc t ion , examples of

c e r t a i n l t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Shakespeare 's plays"' which he

had s e p a r a t e l y l i s t e d a t about t h e same time (1813). I

a m f o r c i n g a d i s t i n c t i o n here between a c r i t i c a l i n t e n t i o n

which seeks t o desc r ibe c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and one which d i s -

covers opera t ive p r i n c i p l e s of method. Third and f o u r t h

on Coler idge ' s d i s c r e t e l is t -- t h e first i s "expecta t ion

i n preference t o su rp r i ze t t which I have c i t e d e a r l i e r -- a r e "independence of t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e p l o t " and "inde-

pendence of t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e s t o r y as t h e groundwork

of t h e plotU(CWS 1 0 0 ) . The wording which accompanies

"independence of t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e p l o t " is very similar

t o t h a t which I have quoted above i n r e fe rence t o King

Learr " t h e p l o t i n t e r e s t s us on account of t h e c h a r a c t e r s , - no t v i c e versa : it i s t h e canvas only"(CWS 100) . But

contained wi th in Coler idge 's c l a r i f i c a t i o n of h i s f o u r t h

" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " i s a r e f e r e n c e t o King Lear which con-

t r i b u t e s much t o an understanding of Coler idge 's v i s i o n

of t h a t p lay;

Hence Shakespeare d id no t t a k e t h e t r o u b l e of inven t ing s t o r i e s . It was enough f o r him t o s e l e c t from those t h a t had been invented o r recorded such as had one o r o t h e r , o r both , of two recommendations, namely, s u i t a b l e n e s s t o h i s purposes, and second, t h e i r be ing a l r e a d y p a r t s of popular t r a d i t i o n -- names we had

o f t e n heard o f , and of t h e i r f o r t u n e s , and we should l i k e t o s e e t h e man himsel f* It i s t h e man himself t h a t Shakespeare f o r t h e first time makes us acquain- t e d wi th . Lear (omit t h e first scene, y e t a l l remains) . So Shylock. (CWS 101)

The parenthes ized remark about King Lear -- "omit t h e first

scene, y e t a l l remains" -- f i n d s somewhat f u l l e r expos i t ion

i n Coler idge ' s "analys is" of t h e p lay , and fo l lows i m -

mediately t h e remarks about i t s improbabi l i tyr "Let t h e

f irst scene of Lear have been l o s t , and l e t it be only

understood t h a t a fond f a t h e r had been duped by h y p o c r i t i c a l

profess ions of l o v e and duty on t h e p a r t of two daughters

t o d i s i n h e r i t a t h i r d , previous ly and deservedly more dear

t o him, and a l l t h e r e s t of t h e t ragedy would r e t a i n i ts

i n t e r e s t undiminished and be p e r f e c t l y in te l l ig ib leU(CWS l 8 2 ) ,

Coler idge ' s l o g i c is mechanically s e n s i b l e with regard

t o t h e " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " he has descr ibed bu t con t rad ic to ry

t o t h e proposed p a r t i c u l a r i t y of Shakespeare's p resen ta t ion

of " t h e man h imse l f , " t h e man Lear whom Coleridge desc r ibes

from what he has der ived from t h a t first scene of t h e playa

The s t r a n g e y e t by no means unnatura l mixture of s e l f i s h n e s s , s e n s i b i l i t y and h a b i t of f e e l i n g derived from and f o s t e r e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r rank and usages of t h e i n d i v i d u a l ; t h e i n t e n s e d e s i r e t o be i n t e n s e l y beloved, s e l f i s h and y e t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e s e l f - i shness of a lov ing and kindly n a t u r e -- a f e e b l e s e l f i s h n e s s , s e l f - s u p p o r t l e s s and l e a n i n g f o r a l l p leasure on ano the r ' s breas t1 t h e s e l f i s h c rav ing

a f t e r a sympathy wi th a prodiga l d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s , con t rad ic ted by i ts own o s t e n t a t i o n and t h e mode and n a t u r e of i t s claims; t h e anx ie ty , t h e d i s t r u s t , t h e jealousy, which more o r l e s s accompany a l l s e l f i s h a f f e c t i o n s and a r e among t h e s u r e s t c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n s of mere fondness from love , and which o r i g i n a t e Lear 's eager wish t o enjoy h i s daughter 's v i o l e n t profess ions , whi le t h e i n v e t e r a t e h a b i t s of sovere ignty convert t h e wish i n t o claim and p o s i t i v e r i g h t , and t h e incompliance wi th it i n t o crime and t reason; -- t h e s e f a c t s , t h e s e passions, t h e s e moral v e r i t i e s , on which t h e whole t ragedy is founded, a r e a l l prepared f o r , and w i l l t o t h e r e t r o s p e c t be found i m l i e d i n , t h e s e first four o r f i v e l i n e s of t h e play. 7 CWS 178)

And y e t Coler idge says , "omit t h e first scene, y e t a l l

remains," The impl ica t ions of t h i s s ta tement have a much

wider range than t h e r a t h e r narrowly f u n c t i o n a l i s t a t t i t u d e

which produced it. Coler idge i s he re u s i n g kin^ Lear t o

defend h i s argument t h a t Shakespeare's p l o t s a r e merely

t h e occasions of t h e c h a r a c t e r s and pass ions , and he

p o s t u l a t e s t h e nonexistence of t h e first scene of King

Lear i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e v a l i d i t y of a genera l charac- - t e r i s t i c , It i s h e r e t h a t Co le r idgeos consummate i n t e r e s t

in c h a r a c t e r s , producing remarkably a s t u t e and competent

observat ions both h e r e ( a s i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of ear)

and elsewhere, r e s u l t i n a misapprehension of t h e metaphor

of t h e p lay Kina Lear. P a r t of Coler idge 's d i f f i c u l t y

wi th t h i s pl'ay a r i s e s from h i s f a i l u r e t o d iscover an

e t h i c a l s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e c h a r a c t e r s of Goneril and Regan,

when t h e convent ions of t h e play i t s e l f do not demand such

a s t r u c t u r i n g , And wi th in t h e p lay t h e v i c e s of Goneril

and Regan do n o t , as Coler idge has i t , walk i n t w i l i g h t ,

"by which wickedness may be made t o appear as n o t wicked-

nessM(CWS 9 9 ) , I w i l l r e t u r n t o t h i s l a t e r bu t i n t h e

meantime I wish t o concen t ra te upon t h a t content of t h e

first scene of King Lear which Coler idge f e e l s i s theo-

r e t i c a l l y expendable, I should n o t wish t o be misunderstood

on t h i s p o i n t , f o r Coler idge nowhere sugges ts t h a t t h e

first scene of King Lear i $ u s e l e s s o r superf luous,

The scene comprises genera l ly what Coleridge says it

does, bu t it a l s o , and j u s t as impor tant ly , con ta ins i n

i ts language t h e metaphorical elements of t h e a c t i o n

which no t only fo l lows b u t which has a l r eady inexorably

begun. The a c t i o n of t h i s p lay i s as cont inuously f u l f i l l e d

i n language as it i s i n ges tu re . Lear a sks h i s daughters

t o - t e l l him how much they love him, as i f he had no t seen

t h e a c t i v e forms of t h a t love -- a p i t i f u l l y g r a t u i t o u s

g e s t u r e on h i s p a r t , perhaps, but t h a t t e l l i n g becomes t h e

a c t i v e agent of t h e s t o r y i t s e l f , Muthost a s t o r y , a

t e l l i n g ; so t h a t Lear 's involvement with language, with

what he hears s a i d , is t h e form of h i s s t o r y , t h e "myth"

of King Lear, Thus Edgar's speech, t h e las t of t h e play8

The weight of t h i s sad time we must obey, Speak what we f e e l , no t what we ought t o say. The o l d e s t ha th borne most; we t h a t a r e young S h a l l never s e e so much, nor l i v e s o long,

( V , iii, 324-27)

I n t h e first scene of t h e p lay Lear 's i n a b i l i t y t o s e e

through h i s daughters ' words t o t h e h e a r t l e s s n e s s beneath

them, and h i s accusa t ion of h e a r t l e s s n e s s t o Cordel ia ' s

say ing "nothing," is an image of t h e abuses of love and

of s i g h t which cons tan t ly r e p e a t themselves i n t h e t e l l i n g

of King Lear, To Lear ' s command "Out of my s i g h t l " h i s

beloved Kent r e p l i e s , "See b e t t e r , Lear, and l e t me s t i l l

remain / The t r u e blank of t h i n e eye" ( I , i, 158-59),

Kent i s banished from Lear 's s i g h t and Lear i s dr iven

mad by what he subsequently s e e s and hea r s , The growing

darkness of t h e p lay; t h e u t t e r disappearance of love;

Lear ' s madness; Glouces te ros b l indness ; a r e germinally

p resen t i n t h i s first scene of t h e p lay , That Coleridge

saw l i t t l e i n it bu t an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e man Lear and

t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r Edmund's l a t e r behavior , f o r c e s me

t o suggest t h a t Coler idge was mistaken when he included

King Lear i n h i s genera l assumption t h a t Shakespeare's

p l o t s a r e merely t h e "canvas" upon which t h e c h a r a c t e r s

a r e pa in ted , I t i s a r e v e r s a l of t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n a s s e r -

t i o n t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r s g ive c o l o r and i n t e r e s t t o t h e

a c t i o n which i s imi ta ted by t ragedy, O f a l l Shakespeare's

t r a g e d i e s , King Lear probably comes c l o s e s t t o be ing an

i m i t a t i o n of a n a c t i o n , i n t h e sense i n which t h e charac-

t e r s , as human beings (" the man himself" as Coleridge

phrases i t ) , a r e subordinated t o and even dehumanized by

t h e a c t i o n s they a r e caught i n , Thus Coler idge 's des-

c r i p t i o n of Goneril and Regan as Itthe pure unnatura l t t

and "monstrous," Leara "convulsed na tu re , " The Stewarda

" u t t e r unredeemable baseness * " Edmundt "base-born."

The Foolr "an i n s p i r e d i d i o t . " A l l of t h e s e words c a r r y

a sense of what it i s t o be a t once human and dehumanized,

But t h e very ex i s t ence of Goneril and Regan as Shakespeare

has presented them i n t h i s p lay , i s an u t t e r pervers ion

of and an out rage a g a i n s t Coler idge 's a s s e r t i o n t h a t

"man's mind i s t h e very focus of a l l t h e r a y s of i n t e l l e c t

s c a t t e r e d throughout t h e images of n a t u r e , l t9 I w i l l r e t u r n

t o t h i s i s s u e i n my concluding chap te r i n o rde r t o connect

it wi th Kant' s moral metaphysics,

Coler idge t e l l s u s i n h i s essay "On Poesy o r A r t w

t h a t it is t h e artist 's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o i m i t a t e na tu re ;

no t t o copy t h e mere n a t u r e bu t t o "master t h e essence,

t h e n a t u r a na tu rans , which presupposes a bond between n a t u r e

i n t h e h ighes t sense and t h e soul of man, "lo Coleridge

cont inues , " t h e wisdom i n n a t u r e is d i s t ingu i shed from

t h a t i n man by t h e co - ins tan tane i ty of t h e p lan and t h e -

execut ion; t h e thought and t h e product a r e one, o r a r e

given a t once; but t h e r e i s no r e f l e x a c t , and hence

t h e r e is no moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , I n man t h e r e i s r e f l e x i o n ,

freedom, and choice; he is , t h e r e f o r e , t h e head of t h e

v i s i b l e c r e a t i o n . "11 So t h a t Goneril and Regan become, i n

C o l e r i d g e O s words, " p i c t u r e s o f , . . t he pure unnatura lW(CW~

177) . H i s vocabulary r e v e a l s h i s suggest ion t h a t they

a r e "copies of mere na ture" (na tura n a t u r a t a ) which pro-

/ duces "emptiness" and "unrea l i ty . " But it i s cur ious

t h a t G o n e r i l 0 s and Regan's a c t i o n s i n t h e play mir ror

f a i t h f u l l y Coler idge ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i n d i f f e r e n c e of

na tu re t i n them t h e r e i s no r e f l e x a c t o r conscience, and

no moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . But Goneril and Regan a r e pure ly

unnatura l because they a r e human; t h e i r be ing con t ra ry t o

n a t u r e i s t h e form of t h e i r humanity, no t t h e i r unnatural-

ness . When I move t o The Tempest I w i l l show t h a t Coler-

i d g e Q s de l igh ted response t o Caliban is t h e r e v e r s a l of

t h e Goneril-Regan dilemma -- Caliban i s n e i t h e r human nor

nonhuman; he i s a c r e a t i o n , a symbolism, a " s o r t of c r e a t u r e

of t h e e a r t h , " He is of fens ive , b u t he i s n a t u r a l .

Coler idge l i k e n s Cal iban t o t h e Fool i n King Learr

"The Fool i s as wonderful a c r e a t i o n as t h e Caliban -- an

i n s p i r e d idiotW(CWS 184). I would suggest t h a t Coleridge

i s n o t us ing t h e word " i d i o t " i n t h i s context t o mean

mental def ic iency a lone , " I d i o t " d e r i v e s from i d i o t e s ,

meaning a " p r i v a t e person," and W i l l i a m Wil leford i n

The Fool and H i s Scepter n o t e s t h a t " the f o o l is o f t e n ,

a ' p r i v a t e person' who g ives symbolic expression t o t h e

problems of human i n d i v i d u a l i t y i n i ts r e l a t i o n both t o

r a t i o n a l norms and t o what exceeds them, y12 Willeford

cont inues , and he re we can s e e how Caliban 's func t ion is

similar t o t h a t of t h e Fool 's i n t h e sense of " i d i o t " j u s t

descr ibed , " t h e Fool has antecedents and r e l a t i v e s among

a wide range of people who i n va r ious ways v i o l a t e t h e

human image and who come t o a modus v ivendi wi th s o c i e t y

by making a show of t h a t v i o l a t i o n . Coler idge, however,

t ends t o underest imate t h e symbolic p o s i t i o n of t h e Pool

i n King Lear by see ing him e s s e n t i a l l y as a c h a r a c t e r - whose f o o l i s h n e s s func t ions t o c o n t r a s t wi th and t o exacer-

b a t e Lear 's s u f f e r i n g s , He i n s i s t s a t t h e same time t h a t

t h e Fool is n o t simply a comic buffoon b u t a personage who

is "brought i n t o l i v i n g connection wi th t h e pathos o f t h e

p lay , wi th t h e sufferingsfi(CWS 184) . Coler idge comments

upon Shakespeare's use of t h e Fool, and t o what e f f e c t :

While Shakespeare accommodated himself t o t h e t a s t e and s p i r i t of t h e t imes i n which he l i v e d , h i s genius and h i s judgment t augh t him t o use t h e s e c h a r a c t e r s [clowns and f o o l s ] wi th t e r r i b l e e f f e c t i n aggra- v a t i n g t h e misery and agony of some of h i s most d i s - t r e s s i n g scenes. This r e s u l t is e s p e c i a l l y obvious i n King Lear; t h e c o n t r a s t of t h e Fool wonderfully he ightens t h e colour ing of some of t h e most p a i n f u l s i t u a t i o n s where t h e o ld monarch i n t h e depth and f u r y of h i s despa i r complains t o t h e warr ing elements of t h e i n g r a t i t u d e of h i s daughters . (CWS 43)

To Lear ' s "0, l e t me n o t be mad, n o t mad, sweet heavenl"

Coler idge comments t h a t " the deepest t r a g i c no tes a r e

o f t e n s t r u c k by a h a l f sense of a n impending blow, The

Fool 's conclusion of t h i s a c t by a grotesque p r a t t l i n g

seems t o i n d i c a t e t h e d i s l o c a t i o n of f e e l i n g t h a t has

begun and i s t o be continuedn(Cws 185) .

She t h a t ' s a maid now, and laughs a t my depar tu re , S h a l l no t be a maid long, un less t h i n g s be c u t s h o r t e r .

(1, v, 45-46)

The Fool 's p r a t t l e is indeed disengaging, Its c h e e r f u l

impropriety t o t h e event ear's enraged and wounded

depar tu re from Goneri l , h i s p a t e r n a l disengagement) a t t h e

same t ime t h a t t h e event i t s e l f i s a n impropriety a t every

l e v e l , i s what makes t h e coup le t s t r a n g e l y appropr ia t e ,

A s a kind of r i d d l e it r e q u i r e s , somewhere, an answer,

The senses of it inc lude v i o l a t i o n , r i d i c u l e , c a s t r a t i o n

and premature dea th , The answers, i n language and event ,

a re made "cor rec t ly" as t h e p lay cont inues t o be i n f e c t e d

by (dis-eased by) t h e s e cond i t ions . Coler idge 's words

"dislocation,,,continued" o f f e r much and a r e o f f e r e d up

t o , l a t e r , t h e storm scener "What a world's convention of

agonies! , . . l e t it have been u t t e r e d t o t h e b l i n d , t h e

howlings of convulsed n a t u r e would seem converted i n t o t h e

voice of conscious humanity....derangement,..full mad-

n e s s " ( ~ W ~ 187) . The disengaged language of t h e Fool show

is transposed t o t h e complete d i s l o c a t i o n of Lear a t every

l e v e l . A s King, Fa ther and Man he i s p o s i t i o n l e s s , j u s t

as t h e Fool of t h e Tarot deck i s p o s i t i o n l e s s , numbered 0.

The Fool says t o Lear, "thou ar t an 0 without a f i g u r e -- I a m a f o o l , thou a r t n o t h i n g W ( I , i v , 180) . And e a r l i e r ,

"Can you make no use of noth ing , nuncle?"( I , i v , 29) . I n

The Fool and H i s s c e p t e r W i l l i a m Wil leford c la ims t h a t

t h e Fool and Lear toge the r compose a "Sovereign Fool"

which i s t o say t h e " t o t a l a s s i m i l a t i o n of k ingship by

f o l l y . 11 14.

By t h e t ime t h e storm breaks on t h e hea th , t h e Sovereign Fool r u l e s t h e kingdom. The storm i s Lear 's madness, it i s a l s o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of cosmos i n chaos and of r e a l i t y i n i l l u s i o n . . , . But i n t h e absence of a l i v i n g order (based on j u s t i c e and mercy) wi th in t h e kingdom t h e power of h i s k ingship can t a k e only chao t i c forms. He can no longer i n a k ingly o r hero ic way; he can only t r y t o r e a l i z e t h a t "when we a r e born, we c r y t h a t we a r e come / To t h i s g r e a t s t a g e of foo l s , " And on t h a t s t a g e he can openly assume h i s f o o l i s h i d e n t i t y no longer t h e s i l l y b u t t , duped by h imsel f , by h i s Fool , by h i s e v i l daughters , and by t h e gods and f o r c e s of n a t u r e , but now an agent of f o l l y i n a f u l l e r and deeper sense , of t h e wholeness t h a t t h e kingdom has l o s t . 1 5

The "sovereign f o o l " as a s e c u l a r cond i t ion converges upon

t h e realm of t h e Church wi th t h e i n c l u s i o n of Edgar i n t o

-63-

t h e Fool as t h e proper s p i r i t of f o l l y , toge the r compose

a kind of nonholy t r i n i t y whose a u t h o r i t y r e f e r s t o what

Wil leford c a l l s a " s t r u c t u r e i n i t s fragmentat ion and of

t h e fragments i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r r a t i o n a l c e n t r e

t h a t keeps them from being simply @ n o t h i n g 8 . "I6 Even

though reduced t o t h e most primal l e v e l , it is nonethe less

an a c t i v e resumption of a u t h o r i t y and w i l l , and i s the re -

f o r e ( r educ ib ly ) redemptive, The "nothing" i s a l s o t h e

composition of absences i n human Being which as Coleridge

has i t , "presupposes a bond between n a t u r e i n t h e h ighes t

sense and t h e s o u l of man. "17 The h e a r t l e s s n e s s of Goneril

and Regan, t h e b l indness of Gloucester , t h e mindlessness

of Lear combine t o shape a nega t ive human q u a n t i t y , a kind

of vacuum of s o u l , And it i s t o t h i s q u a l i t y of d i so rde r ,

t h i s ''chaos,' t h a t t h e c r e a t i v e f o r c e of order addresses

i t s e l f -- n o t as imposi t ion but as a t ransforming, a

becoming, a proceeding. Form i s a "proceeding," Coleridge

t e l l s us . And i n another way, "God s a i d l e t t h e r e be l i g h t ,

and t h e r e was l i g h t -- n o t t h e r e was l i g h t . " The d i l a t i n g

eye i s a response t o darkness; proceeding form i s a d i l a t i n g

movement. *

The c e n t r e of King Lear i s loca ted i n t h e a c t i v e con-

d i t i o n of Sovereign Fool dur ing t h e storm scene; a con-

d i t i o n p o t e n t i a l l y p resen t i n t h e a c t i o n s of any f o o l i s h

king and surely to be realized amid chaos. The authority

of kingship provides an expanded image of ordinary human

will; self-delusion or delusion involving a king is by

definition extraordinary; and extraordinary delusion on

the part of anyone is madness. Edgar's madness is not

delusion, it is disguise, The Fool is simply a fool.

Edgar is a sane nonfool. Lear is a mad king, "If the

king completely abdicates in favor of folly, the psychic

system of which he is symbolically the center breaks down .. . . . .The resulting state means renewed- contact with sources

of life and meaning, but it also means dispossession and

ruin. "I8 Coleridge intuits that the play begins "as a

stormy day in summer, with brightness; but that brightness

is lurid, and anticipates the tempestW(CWS 178). That

same lurid brightness is an image of the deluded state of

both kingship and kinship at the beginning of the play,

and is redeemable only by active admission of the darkness

it so inadequately attempts to hide. Folly supersedes

rational judgment as the redemptive force in Kine Lear,

just as it does in various forms in other plays (e.g.,

A Midsummer's Night's Dream). And one is as moved by the

reality of Gloucester's imagined leap from the cliff as

one is by Lear's holding a mirror to the dead Cordelia's

lips. The absolute form of redemption in the Christian

e t h i c i s death, and Lear d i e s as much from a broken h e a r t

as he does from a longing t o be redeemed.

Where have I been? Where a m I ? F a i r day l igh t? I am migh t i ly abused. I should e 'en d i e with p i t y , To s e e another thus. (Iv, v i i , 52-54)

To which Coler idge adds t h e sympathetic g l o s s , " the a f f e c t -

i n g r e t u r n of Lear t o reason and t h e mild pathos prepar ing

t h e mind f o r t h e las t s a d y e t sweet consola t ion of h i s

deathU(CWS 1 8 8 ) . Lear d i e s i n t h e n a t u r a l l i g h t of day

and t h e combined death of Goneri l , Regan and Edmund is t h e

removal of t h e contamination of t h a t l i g h t by s p i r i t u a l

darkness . The r i t e of passage i s completer it i s t h e

bus iness of t ragedy t o concern i t s e l f wi th abso lu tes , u l -

t ima tes . There a r e enormous l o s s e s but what remains of

t h e process i s o n t o l o g i c a l l y sound, i s "order" as I have

descr ibed it e a r l i e r .

I t was Shakespeare who transformed King Lear from a

s t o r y wi th a happy ending t o a t ragedy of t h e most com-

p e l l i n g order . The s t o r i e s of one "Lei r , son of Baldud"

chronic led i n Holinshed and t o l d by John Higgins and Edmund

Spenser a l i k e end happi ly f o r Lear, who is reconci led t o

Cordel ia and r e s t o r e d t o t h e throne. But as Alf red Harbage

t e l l s u s , "Shakespeare a l o n e and i n def iance of precedent

is a l l t h a t i n s p i r e s p leasure without , and aloof from, and even c o n t r a r i l y t o , i n t e r e s t , 2 1

When Coler idge contemplates a t h i n g of beauty he cons iders

"not only t h e l i v i n g balance, bu t l ikewise a l l t h e accom-

paniments t h a t even by d i s t u r b i n g a r e necessary t o t h e

renewal and continuance of t h e balance. "22 This i s t h e

l i v i n g p i c t u r e of King Lear, a b e a u t i f u l t h i n g , i t s

d i s tu rbances necessary. Keats' no t ion of "negat ive

c a p a b i l i t y " comes t o mind as a c t i v e i n t h i s play/playing

of beauty. The Sovereign Fool is t h e f i g u r e of negat ive

c a p a b i l i t y a t t h e outermost edge of poe t i c thought -- Coleridget "[art] i s t h e f igured language of t h o u g h t ~ ~ ~ -- which remains ( i s capable of remaining) i n Keats' words,

" u n c e r t a i n t i e s , myster ies , doubts, without any i r r i t a b l e

reaching a f t e r f a c t and reason. "24 Keats denies us h i s

reasoning as he reaches t h e endpoint of h i s meaning8

"with a g r e a t poet t h e sense of Beauty overcomes every

o t h e r cons ide ra t ion , o r r a t h e r o b l i t e r a t e s a l l consider-

a t i o n , t125 This i s t h e q u a l i t y of a "Man of Achievement,

e s p e c i a l l y i n L i t e r a t u r e , " and Keats mentions only two

names; Shakespeare and Coler idge, It was 1817, and a

l e t t e r t o h i s b r o t h e r , The same year Coleridge published

"The S p e c i f i c Symptoms of Poet ic Power" i n t h e Biographia

L i t e r a r i a and i n 1818 "Method i n Thought" appeared i n

The Fr iend and Coleridge himself appeared a t t h e H a l l of

t h e Phi losophica l Socie ty t o l e c t u r e on Shakespeare.

About Shakespeare, Keats says simply but with profound

impl ica t ion t h a t he possessed nega t ive c a p a b i l i t y "so

enormously." Coler idge, however, becomes an example of

a powerful i n t e l l e c t hovering on t h e edge of negat ive

c a p a b i l i t y but drawing i t s e l f s h o r t of remaining t h e r e .

Keats u t t e r s t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n i n epitomized Colerid-

gean phraseologyc "Coleridge, f o r i n s t a n c e , would l e t go

by a f i n e i s o l a t e d v e r i s i m i l i t u d e caught from t h e Pene-

t r a l i u m of mystery, from being incapable of remaining

content with half-knowledge. 11 26

Keats is d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e minds of Shakes-

peare and Coler idge. It is Shakespeare whose sense of

Beauty o b l i t e r a t e s a l l cons ide ra t ion and Coler idge whose

sense of Beauty compels him a l s o t o cons ider what has been

o b l i t e r a t e d , as he d id i n h i s c r i t i c i s m of King Lear.

He s e e s t h e t e r r i b l e beauty of "Lear 's despa i r and growing

madness i n t h e storm" and o f f e r s sublime analogies t "Take

it b u t as a p i c t u r e f o r t h e eye only , it i s more t e r r i f i c

than any a Michael Angelo i n s p i r e d by a Dante could have

conceived, and which none bu t a Michael Angelo could have

executedU(CWS 187) . But Coler idge 's response t o t h e scene

in which Gloucester is blinded is only to the gratuitous

cruelty of the act. Coleridge sees physical mutilation,

an obliteration of the eyes, and his only recourse is to

consider the demands of evil's credibility; "What can I

say of this scene? My reluctance to think Shakespeare

wrong, and yet it is necessary to harmonize their

[~oneril's and Regan's] cruelty to their fatherN(CWS 187).

Synopsis

Coler idge ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t King Lear was Shakes-

peare ' s most tremendous e f f o r t as a poet i s probably a t

t h e source of h i s ambivalence toward t h e play. I n e f f e c t ,

Coler idge i s say ing throughout h i s c r i t i c i s m of King Lear

t h a t Shakespeare 's dramatic judgment was subordinated t o

h i s p o e t i c genius. I d e a l l y , "passion i m i t a t e s orderM -- t h e two powers balance one another , so t h a t t h e t h i n g

produced is both i n t e g r a l l y r e a l and r e a l i n t h e world.

This i s t h e e q u a l i t y , t h e balance, of genius and judgment.

But King Lear i s a play i n which thought i s placed back

among t h e phenomena of expression, which i s t o say t h a t

n e i t h e r t h e thought nor t h e language a r e simple "e f fec t s "

of one another . I mentioned t h a t t h e a c t i o n of King Lear

occurs as much ( q u a l i t a t i v e l y ) i n language as it does i n

g e s t u r e -- t h a t it i s an "organism of words," t o use

Merl eau-Ponty ' s phrase, which "br ings t h e meaning i n t o

ex i s t ence as a t h i n g a t t h e very h e a r t of t h e t e x t , I 1 27

Merleau-Ponty cont inues (and I w i l l t i e h i s thought t o

Coler idge ' s momentarily) r -

If we cons ider only t h e conceptual and d e l i m i t i n g meaning of words, it is t r u e t h a t t h e ve rba l form m a m a p p e a r s a r b i t r a r y . But it would no longer appear s o i f we took i n t o account t h e emotional content of

t h e word, which we have c a l l e d i t s ' g e s t u r a l ' sense , which i s a l l - impor tant i n poet ry , f o r example. It would then be found t h a t t h e words, vowels and phonemes a r e so many ways of " s ing ingwthe world, and t h a t t h e i r func t ion i s t o r ep resen t t h i n g s not. . . by reason of an o b j e c t i v e resemblance, bu t because they e x t r a c t , and l i t e r a l l y express , t h e i r emotional essence.28

The emotional essence o r g e s t u r a l sense i s what Coleridge

ca l l s t h e "connections of t h e moment" o r what i s "present

and foremost i n t h e mind." " A s of h igher worth, so doubt-

l e s s s t i l l more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of poe t i c genius does t h e

imagery become, when it moulds and colours i t s e l f t o t h e

circumstances, passion o r c h a r a c t e r , present and foremost

i n t h e mind. For u n r i v a l l e d ins tances of t h i s excellence. . .

t h e Lear , Othel lo . . . . I f (CWS 63). However, t h i s i s an

excel lence both q u a l i f i e d and def ined by p o e t i c genius,

t h e "coadunative" power of Imagination-Passion. The

q u a l i f i c a t i o n ( o r indeed warning) which Coleridge i n t r o -

duces i s t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e "guiding Thought," t h e

"connective" power which is a t once t h e source and t h e

product of Method. E s s e n t i a l l y , Coler idge wishes t o r e scue

p o e t i c language from t h e danger of incoherence by g iv ing

form t o substance and substance t o form ( c f . t h e "grotesque -

p r a t t l i n g s t ' of t h e Foo l ) .

We have seen t h a t from t h e confluence of innumerable impressions i n each moment of time t h e mere pass ive memory must needs tend t o confusion -- a r u l e t h e

seeming except ions t o which ( t h e thunder-bursts i n Lear , f o r i n s t a n c e ) a r e r e a l l y confirmations of i t s t r u t h . For i n many ins tances t h e predominance of some mighty Passion t akes t h e p lace of t h e guiding Thought, and t h e r e s u l t p resen t s t h e method of Nature r a t h e r than t h e h a b i t of t h e Individual.(CWS 80)

When o rde r i m i t a t e s passion, t h e r e s u l t i s confusion. But

on t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e thought u t t e r l y r e p l a c e s t h e

pass ion t h e r e s u l t i s mere fo rmal i ty , and Coleridge hastens

t o p o i n t out t h a t "confusion and fo rmal i ty a r e but t h e

oppos i te poles of t h e same null- point"(^^^ 8 1 ) . But t o

cont inue , " f o r Thought, Imagination (and we may add Pass ion) ,

a r e , i n t h e i r very essence, t h e f irst , connect ive, t h e

l a t t e r , coadunative; and . . . i f t h e excess l ead t o Method

misapplied and t o connections of t h e moment, t h e absence,

o r marked def ic iency e i t h e r precludes Method a l t o g e t h e r ,

both form and substance; o r . . . r e t a i n s t h e outward form

only" (CWS 80) . I t h i n k t h a t t h i s i s p ro to typa l of Coler idge 's remon-

s t r a n c e s a g a i n s t King Lear , which i s t o suggest t h a t he

f e e l s t h a t a t t h e e t h i c a l l e v e l t h e p lay precludes t h e form

of method. Nowhere does Coleridge i n d i c a t e t h a t he f i n d s

Shakespeare a c t u a l l y d e f i c i e n t i n Method i n h i s composition

of King Lear, Rather , Coler idge 's dismay i s with regard t o

t h e seemingly p a r a t a c t i c n a t u r e of d i s c l o s u r e s wi th in t h e

t e x t -- t h e connect ions of t h e moment, t h e method of n a t u r e

-- bu t which Coler idge never the less dec la res t o c o n s t i t u t e

an awesome work of "poet ic genius." It i s an ambivalent

compliment and I suspect t h a t Coler idge would have been

happier wi th King Lear as a n epic poem r a t h e r than a p lay .

" O m i t t h e first scene, y e t a l l remains" i n d i c a t e s Coler idge 's

primary i n t e r e s t i n t h e n a r r a t i v e (connect ive) wholeness

of t h i s p lay , as well , as h i s sense of dramatic language as

dialogue; both of which a r e f r u s t r a t e d a t every t u r n by t h e

p e r s i s t e n c e o f t h e coadunative metaphor of t h e t e l l i n g of

King Lear.

Chapter Three

COLERIDGE ON THE TEMPEST

If King Lear r e p r e s e n t s f o r Coler idge t h e l a r g e s t

e f f o r t of Shakespeare 's p o e t i c genius, The Tempest is a

demonstration of t h e power of poet ry i t s e l f . Coleridge

c h a r a c t e r i z e s Shakespeare 's works as "romantic poetry

r e v e a l i n g i t s e l f i n , t h e dramaM(CWS 51) and he r e f e r s

c o n s i s t e n t l y t o The Tempest as a "romance" -- The Tempest

t h e r e f o r e epi tomizing and a t t h e apex of Shakespeare's

dramatic canon. Coleridge w i l l t e l l h i s audience t h a t

"The Tempest..,has been s e l e c t e d as a specimen of t h e

romantic drama; i . e . , of a drama, t h e i n t e r e s t s of which

a r e independent of a l l h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s and a s s o c i a t i o n s ,

and a r i s e from t h e i r f i t n e s s t o t h a t f a c u l t y of our n a t u r e ,

t h e imagination I mean, which owns no a l l e g i a n c e t o t ime

and p lace , -- a s p e c i e s of drama, t h e r e f o r e , i n which

e r r o r s i n chronology and geography, no mortal s i n s i n any

s p e c i e s , a r e v e n i a l , o r count f o r nothingM(CWS 203) . The

occasion o f fe red by The Tempest t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s and

a c t i v i t i e s of imagination and method a r t i c u l a t e d throughout

Coler idge ' s c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s , i s one t o which Coleridge

a t t e n d s with profound d e l i g h t . Coler idge 's approval of

The Tempest i s c l e a r and deep, unmuddied by t h e kinds of

moral and a e s t h e t i c doubts he had about t h e apparent

a r b i t r a r i n e s s of King L e a r w s t r a g i c passion. The Tempest

corresponds, without ambivalence o r excess, t o Coler idge 's

sense of beauty -- t h e r e a r e no o b l i t e r a t i o n s t o i r r i t a b l y

cons ider i n t h e Keats ian sense ; only harmonies t o be ex-

h i b i t e d and p ra i sed . Coleridge i s a t ease with t h i s p lay

and h i s c r i t i c a l prose has a r i c h n e s s and f u l l n e s s which

whi le i l l u m i n a t i n g events and c h a r a c t e r s , i r r a d i a t e s and

g ives credence t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s of poe t i c thought which

inform them. It i s r e v e r e n t i a l ( i . e . r e s p e c t f u l and honor-

i f i c ) c r i t i c i s m , i n t h e sense i n which Coleridge dec la res

t h a t " t h e t a s k [of c r i t i c i z i n g t h e works o f - shakespeare l

w i l l be gen ia l i n propor t ion as t h e c r i t i c i s m i s reveren-

tialW(CWS 199) . And t h e o b j e c t of Co le r idgews "genial t '

t a s k i s " t o prove t h a t i n a l l p o i n t s from t h e most impor-

t a n t t o t h e most minute, t h e judgment of Shakespeare i s

commensurate wi th h i s genius -- nay, t h a t h i s genius

r e v e a l s i t s e l f i n h i s judgment i n i t s most exa l t ed form"

(CWS 199) *

These a r e some of t h e in t roduc to ry s ta tements i n

C o l e r i d g e w s n o t e s f o r a l e c t u r e on The Tempest as one of

t h e London Phi losophical Soc ie ty s e r i e s (1818). A t t h i s

t ime t h e r e was controversy concerning Coler idge 's p lag ia r -

isms from A . W. Schlegel , and i n t h e s e no tes t h e r e is an

urgency t o defend both t h e primacy and t h e i n t e g r i t y of

Coler idge 's own ideas . Thus h i s immediate a s s e r t i o n of

h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as a n i n t e l l e c t u a l l y p a t r i o t i c c r i t i c

of Shakespeare 's workst he i s an Englishman who cannot

u t t e r t h e name of Shakespeare without ''a proud and

a f f e c t i o n a t e reverenceW(CWS 199) . These a r e c l e a r l y no t

t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of August Wilhelm Schlegel , a German

p h i l o l o g i s t , d e s p i t e h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y . This i s

t h e c a r e f u l p repara t ion t o a r h e t o r i c a l u t t e r a n c e which

acknowledges Schlegel and d i s q u a l i f i e s him i m p l i c i t l y ,

and a t t h e same time s o l i c i t s sympathy f o r t h e i n j u s t i c e

done t o both t h e o r i g i n a l i t y and dedicated s e n s i t i v i t y

of Coler idge ' s c r i t i c a l response t o Shakespearer "However

i n f e r i o r i n a b i l i t y t o some who have followed me, I am

proud t h a t I was t h e f irst i n t ime who pub l i c ly demonstrated

t o t h e f u l l e x t e n t of t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e supposed

i r r e g u l a r i t y and extravagances of Shakespeare were t h e

mere dreams of a pedantry t h a t a r ra igned t h e eag le because

it had no t t h e dimensions of t h e swanW(CWS 199) . It i s a *

similar pedantry, one assumes, t h a t would a r r a i g n Coleridge

f o r n o t having t h e dimensions of a Schlegel , But Coleridge

cont inues by c i t i n g t h e c r i t i c a l i n t e n t i o n whose " f i r s t

at tempt a t t h e Royal I n s t i t u t i o n " (1811-12) remains h i s

f i n a l a t tempt , t h a t is , t o prove t h e judgment of Shakes-

peare t o be commensurate wi th h i s genius. Co le r idgeQs

a p t i t u d e is r e i t e r a t e d , now i n terms of h i s r e p u t a t i o n as

a c r i t i c genera l ly , f o r " t o judge a r i g h t , , , t h e works of

Shakespeare impl ie s t h e power and t h e means of judging

r i g h t l y of a l l o t h e r works, those of a b s t r a c t sc ience

a l o n e exceptedM(CWS 1 9 9 ) . That Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of

Shakespeare & judgment i s a concern I w i l l t ake up l a t e r ,

The Tempest i s t h e p lay Coler idge s e l e c t s as t h e

worthy pro to type , both of t h e works of Shakespeare and of

Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of those works, So t h a t t h i s l e c t u r e

of 1818 i s informed by a conscious s p i r i t of defense; a

s p i r i t l e s s u rgen t ly bu t never the less present i n t h e e a r l i e r

Royal I n s t i t u t i o n l e c t u r e which we a r e f o r t u n a t e t o possess

i n t h e form of J, P a C o l l i e r ' s t r a n s c r i p t i o n , The two

l e c t u r e s toge the r compose a defense of poet ry -- t h a t it

is occasioned by The Tempest i s Coler idge 's r ecogn i t ion of

t h e defense of poet ry contained wi th in t h e p lay i t s e l f , and

p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e person of Prospero, I am a t t r i b u t i n g

t h i s r ecogn i t ion t o Coler idge as i n t u i t i v e , and no t d e r i v i n g

it from any s p e c i f i c o r consciously s t a t e d source i n t h e

c r i t i c a l t e x t , The s p i r i t of defense i s demonstrably

.i p r e sen t wi th in a range of Coleridgean imaginat ive thought E

-78-

which inc ludes i n t e l l e c t i o n , p r e c i s e knowledges, a sense

of wonder, and even petulance. And which a r e a l s o ,

p r e c i s e l y and cur ious ly , t h e forms taken by Prospero's

thought i n The Tempest. Coleridge n o t e s t h a t t h i s p lay

"addresses i t s e l f e n t i r e l y t o t h e imaginat ive f a c u l t y *

-- meaning t h e imaginat ive f a c u l t y of i t s audience -- and Coler idge i s concerned t h a t t h e s o r t of a s s i s t a n c e t o

t h e imaginat ion o f fe red by " the complicated scenery and

decora t ions of modern t imes" i s dangerous because it

f o s t e r s sensory i l l u s i o n t

For t h e p r i n c i p a l and only genuine excitement ought t o come from wi th in , -- from t h e moved and sympathetic imaginat ion; whereas, where s o much is addressed t o t h e mere e x t e r n a l senses of s e e i n g and hea r ing t h e s p i r i t u a l v i s i o n i s a p t t o l angu i sh , and t h e a t t r a c - t i o n from without w i l l withdraw t h e mind from t h e proper and only l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t which i s in ten- ded t o s p r i n g from within.(CWS 203)

I cannot he lp b u t t o s e e t h i s s ta tement as a summary of

P rosperoOs teachings i n The Tempest, and whi le I do no t

wish t o dwell on t h e s e and o t h e r coincidences of thought

between Prospero-Shakespeare and Coler idge, I do wish t o

c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o t h e way i n which t h e content of The -

Tempest, i t s e l f a complex a s s e r t i o n of t h e power of

poet ry , i n v i s i b l y and pervas ive ly e n t e r s Coler idge ' s

c r i t i c i s m of t h e play. The p o i n t , i n s h o r t , is t h a t

Coleridge 's c r i t i c i s m of The Tempest i s a c t u a l l y a

r e p e t i t i o n of i t s c e n t r a l a s s e r t i o n s .

Coler idge says , on behal f of Shakespeare 's p i c t u r -

esque i n j e c t i o n of "Me, and thy c r y i n g s e l f " i n t o Prospero's

d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s hur r i ed midnight f l i g h t from Milan wi th

Miranda i n h i s arms, " t h e power of poet ry is , by a s i n g l e

word perhaps, t o i n s t i l t h a t energy i n t o t h e mind which

compels t h e imagination t o produce t h e p ic ture . , . ,Here ,

by in t roduc ing a s i n g l e happy e p i t h e t , ' c r y i n g , @ i n t h e

last l i n e , a complete p i c t u r e i s presented t o t h e mind,

and i n t h e product ion of such p i c t u r e s t h e power of genius

consists"(CWS 212). The power of poet ry t h a t Coleridge

i s h e r e a s c r i b i n g t o Shakespeare's genius is t h e same

power t h a t i s given i n and by Prospero, i n t h e sense i n

which Prospero 's power i s t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of image ( t r a n s -

formation) a c t i v a t e d by A r i e l and by t h e donning of t h e

"magic garments" of Poetry. When Prospero i s Poetry he

need only imagine a tempest and a tempest occurs ; and when

he p u t s a s i d e h i s magic garments he says "Lie t h e r e , my

a r t (1, i , 2 "The power of poet ry i s . , . t o i n s t i l t h a t

energy i n t o t h e mind which compels t h e imagination Po pro-

duce t h e p i c t u r e . " So Prospero compels A r i e l t o produce

t h e p i c t u r e , t h e tempest, which i s p ic tu red by t h e audience

through Mirandaos narration. It requires no violent effort

of transposition to hear Prospero's dramatic voice in

coleridge's critical voice, but the curiosity is that Col-

eridge shows very little interest in the character of

hrospero, preferring to concentrate upon Miranda, Ariel and

Caliban. And even this apprehension of character is given

over to context -- to how they are prepared for and to issues of their credibility both within and without their

structural placement, Coleridge is concerned to explicate

The Tempest primarily in terms of "the astonishing scheme

of its construction'' (CVIS 216) and instances of Shakespeare's

scheme are often compared to those which would be devised

by a hypothetical "ordinary dramatist." An ordinary drama-

tist would, for example, have had Gonzalo responding in

some other way to the Boatswain's command that unless

Gonzalo could do something useful, he should get "out of our

way.@@ The assertion of the Boatswain's authority within

his own element leads Gonzalo to say "I have great comfort

from this fellow .I' Coleridge says,

An ordinary dramatist would.,.have represented Gonzalo as moralizing or saying something connected with the Boatswain's language, for ordinary dramatists are not men of genius! they combine their ideas by association or by logical affinity; but the vital writer, who makes men on the stage what they are in nature, in a moment transports himself into the very being of each

personage, and, i n s t e a d of c u t t i n g out a r t i f i c i a l puppets, he b r ings before us t h e men themselves*

(CWS 209)

Gonzalo is , a f t e r a l l , on a boat on t h e high s e a s i n t h e

midst of a tempest, and he f e a r s f o r h i s l i f e , "meditat ing

wi th himself and drawing some comfort t o h i s own mind by

t r i f l i n g with t h e ill expression of t h e Boatswain's f a c e ,

founding upon it some hope of safety"(CWS 209). Co le r idgeDs

d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e way i n which Shakespeare (as a man of

genius , a v i t a l w r i t e r ) "br ings before us t h e men them-

se lves" i s a rewording of what it i s t o i m i t a t e na tu re as

opposed t o copying it. The a c t of i m i t a t i o n presupposes

an a c t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n wi th an evolving n a t u r e (na tu ra

na tu rans ) which inc ludes human n a t u r e , However, " i f t h e

ar t is t copies t h e mere n a t u r e , t h e n a t u r a n a t u r a t a , what

i d l e r i v a l r y ! If he proceeds only from a given form,

which is supposed t o answer t o t h e no t ion of beauty, what

an emptiness, what an u n r e a l i t y t h e r e always i s i n h i s

product ions, as i n C i p r i a n i ' s p i c tu res ! 'l

I n order t o speak p a r t i c u l a r l y of t h e drama, Coleridge

t r ansposes "naturet1 t o " r e a l i t y , " s o t h a t t h e "drama is an

i m i t a t i o n of r e a l i t y , no t a copy,.."(CWS 2 0 0 ) ~ The r e a l i t y

which Shakespeare i m i t a t e s i s both a human and a world

r e a l i t y , t h e " r e a l i t y " of t h e p lay i t s e l f l y i n g p r e c i s e l y

w i t h i n t h e involvement of each with t h e otherr " t h e r e i s

both t h e person, and t h e circumstances a c t i n g upon t h e

personf'(CWS 210). Thus t h e " r e a l i t y " of Gonzalo's response

t o t h e Boatswain dur ing t h e tempest! t h i s man on t h e s t a g e

is what he would be i n n a t u r e . But what he i s on t h e s t a g e

is y e t a sublime form of what he would be i n na tu re ; by

watching t h e p lay we a r e choosing t o s e e t h e sublime form,

t h e t ransformationr " t h e g lo ry round t h e head d i s t i n g u i s h e s

it from a mere vulgar copyl'(CWS 87) . Coleridge

Shakespeare, every form i s t r u e , everyth ing has

i ts foundat ion; we can a l l recognize t h e t r u t h ,

says , " i n

r e a l i t y f o r

but we

s e e it decorated with such hues of beauty and magnified

t o such propor t ions of grandeur t h a t , while we know t h e

f i g u r e , we know a l s o how much it has been r e f i n e d and

exa l t ed by t h e poet''(CWS 87) .

Shakespeare 's c h a r a c t e r s a r e l i t e r a l l y t h e f i g u r a t i o n s

of h i s thought , and i n The Tempest Prospero d iscovers

A r i e l and Cal iban, f igured languages of h i s own, and Shakes-

peare ' s thought. A r i e l ' s refinement and e x a l t a t i o n , h i s

transcendence of mere corporea l form, h i s t ransforming

a c t i v i t y , make him analogue t o t h e s p i r i t of n a t u r e which

Coler idge says i s present i n t h e art ist 's a c t of i m i t a t i n g

it. *The ar t is t must i m i t a t e t h a t which i s wi th in t h e

t h i n g , t h a t which i s a c t i v e through form and f i g u r e , and

d i scourses t o us by symbols -- t h e Natur -ge is t , o r s p i r i t

of na tu re . , . fo r s o only can he hope t o produce any work

t r u l y n a t u r a l i n t h e o b j e c t and t r u l y human i n t h e e f fec t . l t2

This is Prospero's design which i s f u l f i l l e d i n The Tempest

whose "scheme of c o n s t r u c t i o n , " t h a t i s t o say , Shakes-

pea re ' s des ign , Coleridge was as tonished by. So t h a t

A r i e l , t h e s p i r i t of n a t u r e , obeys Prospero's commands

i n o rde r t o produce t h e i r t r u l y human e f f e c t , i . e , , t h e

marriage of Miranda and Ferdinand, But a t t h e same time

it i s A r i e l whom Prospero i m i t a t e s , A r i e l as t h e continu-

a l l y t ransforming s p i r i t o r essence of na tu re , Coler idgeOs

n a t u r a na turans . To cont inue t h e analogue of Prospero-

A r i e l and t o b r i n g it back t o t h e context of how Coleridge

judges ShakespeareOs genius, I quote t h e fo l lowing passage

from "On Poesy o r A r t t ' and symbolical ly i n j e c t it with

A r i e l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Prospero i n The Tempest; "The i d e a

which p u t s t h e form t o g e t h e r cannot i t s e l f be t h e form,

It is above form and i s i ts essence, t h e un ive r sa l i n t h e

i n d i v i d u a l , o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l i t y i t s e l f , -- t h e glance and

exponent of t h e indwel l ing power, l t 3 To s e e t h i s form as

t h e p lay i t s e l f , and t h e forms wi th in it as t h e a c t i n g

f i g u r e s o r c h a r a c t e r s , i s t o s e e t h e i d e a behind Coler idge 's

critical direction with regard to Shakespeare's works,

particularly as it involves explication of the creation of

characters. The Tempest accommodates itself well to Col-

eridgeOs twofold concerns how a character is made to exist,

and how that character derives evolved being (ethos or

individuation) within the action of the play, that is,

both its integral (coadunative) and its externally func-

tional (connective) nature, "the person, and the circum-

stances acting upon the person," First, the person;

Shakespeare's characters are all genera intensely individualized; the results of meditation, of which observation supplied the drapery and the colours necessary to combine them with each other. He had virtually surveyed all the great component powers and impulses of human nature, -- had seen that their different combinations and subordinations were in fact the individualizers of men, and showed how their harmony was produced by reciprocal dispropor- tions of excess or deficiency. (CWS 207-08)

Coleridge introduces the notion of mechanic and organic

regularity to promulgate the issue of copy versus imitation

within the realm of character. In Shakespeare's plays the

characters possess organic regularity or harmony, in which

all the parts conform themselves "to the outward symbols

and manifestations of the essential principle"(CW~ 208).

Coleridge has told us earlier that a "certain quantum of

difference" is essential to imitation and "an indispensable

condition and cause of the pleasure we derive from itM(CWS

200). Such a r e t h e ways of n a t u r e i t s e l f , and Coleridge

p o i n t s t o an "organic" example -- t h e growth of t r e e s ;

" t r e e s of t h e same kind vary cons iderably , according t o t h e

circumstances of s o i l , a i r o r p o s i t i o n ; y e t we a r e a b l e t o

dec ide a t once whether they a r e oaks, elms o r poplars1'(CWS

2O9), So, i n The Tempest we a r e presented wi th a par-

t i c u l a r Boatswain i n a p a r t i c u l a r circumstance, and y e t

we recognize a t t h e same time h i s e s s e n t i a l and gener ic

boatswainness. Shakespeare 's c h a r a c t e r s , then , a r e n e i t h e r

f a l s i f i c a t i o n s nor c a r i c a t u r e s because "every form is t r u e ,

everyth ing has r e a l i t y f o r i t s foundation." But i n 2

Tempest, two of t h e t h r e e c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r s a r e no t even

human, and t h e o t h e r i s p r e t e r n a t u r a l , ~ r o s p e r o , says

Coler idge, is a "being possessed of supernatura l powers,"

A r i e l is a " s o r t of c r e a t u r e of t h e a i r" and Caliban i s

a " s o r t of c r e a t u r e of t h e earthl'(CWS 215). And t h e s e

t h r e e personages have been Mirandaos only company s i n c e

he r e a r l y childhood and a r e t h e circumstances, l i t e r a l l y

speaking, of s o i l , a i r and p o s i t i o n which have cont r ibuted

t o h e r var iance wi th in t h e genera of woman. Coleridge

f e e l s t h a t i t i s p r e c i s e l y t h i s anomaly of circumstance,

of environment, which forms i n Miranda t h e " tenderness of

her f e e l i n g s " and al lows t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s of i d e a l

womanhood t o emerge. Her human environment con ta ins t h e

p u r e s t and most d i s t i l l e d forms of informat ive and shaping

behavioursa Prospero's wisdom, A r i e l ' s i n t e l l i g e n t obed-

i ence , Cal iban 's p r i m i t i v e energy, And while t h e i s l a n d

i t s e l f , as n a t u r e , provides t h e elemental source f o r

A r i e l (a i r ) and Caliban ( e a r t h ) , t h e tempest which Prospero

c r e a t e s demands f u r t h e r p u r i f i c a t i o n by f i r e and water

of i t s U c i v i l i z e d n and ord inary human v i s i t o r s , So t h e

anomaly of t h e i s l a n d as a c h i l d ' s environment c o n s i s t s

i n i t s p u r i t y , a p u r i t y which is y e t n o t s a c r i f i c e d t o a

p a s t o r a l and e l u s i v e s i m p l i c i t y . We a r e engaged by Miranda

and t h e i s l a n d because of t h e c l e a r demarcation of i ts

included complexi t ies ; i ts v i r t u becomes t h e way of

he r innocence. Coler idge draws a t t e n t i o n t o " t h e e x q u i s i t e

f e e l i n g s of a female brought up i n a d e s e r t bu t wi th a l l

t h e advantages of educat ion, a l l t h a t could be communicated

by a wise and a f f e c t i o n a t e f a t h e r . She possesses a l l t h e

de l i cacy of innocence, y e t with a l l t h e powers of he r mind

unweakened by t h e combats of lifen(CWS 210). To compare

t h e names of Miranda i n The Tempest wi th P e r d i t a i n The

Winter 's Tale is, by way of example, t o d i s t i n g u i s h be-

tween t h e cond i t ions of d i s c r e t e containment and p a s t o r a l

exclusionc Miranda, as i n mirort t o wonder; P e r d i t a as i n

perdre t t o l o s e , t o f o r g e t . Two kinds of innocence; two

kinds of "goodn women. So, Mirandai "0 brave new world,

that has such people in't," and Prospero's recognizant

reply, "'Tis new to theen(v, i, 184). Coleridge sees the

character of Miranda as perhaps the most exquisite instance

of Shakespeare's judgment, both as a person, and as a person

responsive to the circumstances of the play. He claims

that Miranda is Shakespeare's "favourite characterW(CWS 210)

-- a remark-in-passing which can probably be traced to Coleridge's assertion that The Tempest addresses itself

entirely to the imaginative faculty. In response to

Miranda's grief about the shipwreckt

Had I been any god of power, I would Have sunk the sea within the earth or ere It should the good ship so have swallowed and The fraughting souls within her. (I, ii, 8-13)

Coleridge remarks, "She still dwells upon that which was

most wanting to the completeness of her nature -- these fellow creatures from whom she appeared banished, with only

one relict to keep them alive, not in her memory, but in

her imaginationn(CWS 210). Moments later, when Miranda is

telling Prospero what she remembers of her infancy, she

says, "'Tis far off, and rather like a dream than an

assurance / That my remembrance warrantsW(I, ii, 44-46). Coleridge finds the entire passage in which this sentence

occurs exemplary of "Shakespearees knowledge of human nature

and generally of the great laws of the human mindt'(CWS 211),

The t h i n g t h a t Miranda remembers "far o f f . , . l i k e a dream"

is expressed i n t e r r o g a t i v e l y t "Had I n o t / Four o r f i v e

women once, t h a t tended me?" (I , ii, 47). Prospero

r e p l i e s ,

But how is it That t h i s l i v e s i n thy mind? What s e e s t thou e l s e I n t h e dark backward and abysm of t ime?

( I , ii, 49-51)

But t h e ques t ion i s l o s t on Miranda, because he r remem-

brance i s a r e - c o l l e c t i o n of images and n o t a memory as

such. Coler idge has t o l d u s t h a t t h e imaginat ive f a c u l t y

"owns no a l l e g i a n c e t o t ime o r space" and h i s g l o s s t o

t h i s passage r e v e a l s t h e way i n which an image, an imagin-

ing , is a p a r t i c u l a r i z e d and experienced kind of knowledger

She might know men from her f a t h e r , and he r remem- brance of t h e p a s t might be worn out by t h e present o b j e c t , but women she only knew by h e r s e l f , by t h e contemplation of he r own f i g u r e i n t h e foun ta in , and she r e c a l l e d t o he r mind what had been, I t was n o t , t h a t she had seen such and such grandees, o r such and such pee resses , bu t she remembered t o have seen some- t h i n g l i k e t h e r e f l e c t i o n of h e r s e l f ; it was not her- s e l f , and it brought back t o he r mind what she had seen most l i k e h e r s e l f . (CWS 212)

Thus t h e knower and t h e known combine t o c r e a t e a common -

i p r i n c i p l e i n t h e a c t of knowing. The mind does no t pass ive ly

r e c e i v e s t a t i c impressions as a kind of t abu la rasa, but

r a t h e r a c t s as t h e v i t a l agency of i t s e l f and of t h e known

t o affirm t h e presence of t h e un ive r sa l i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r .

So Miranda -- both c rea ted by Shakespeare and experiencing

of h e r s e l f as "genera i n t e n s e l y indiv idual ized ." What

we s h a r e a r e our p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s .

I n t h e essay "On Poesy o r A r t " Coleridge p o i n t s wi th

oa re t o what he means by " t h e human mind," conf in ing himself

t o " t h e e f f e c t produced by t h e congrui ty of t h e animal

impression wi th t h e r e f l e c t i v e powers of t h e mind; so t h a t

n o t t h e t h i n g presented , but t h a t which i s re-presented by

t h e t h i n g s h a l l be t h e source of t h e p leasure . I n t h i s

sense n a t u r e i t s e l f i s t o a r e l i g i o u s observer t h e a r t of

God; and f o r t h e same cause ar t i t s e l f might be def ined as

of a middle q u a l i t y between a thought and a t h i n g , or . . . t h e union and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of t h a t which i s na tu re wi th

t h a t which i s exclus ive ly human. I t i s t h e f igured language

of thought , and is d i s t ingu i shed from n a t u r e by t h e u n i t y

of a l l t h e p a r t s i n one thought o r i d e a , I n The Tempest

t h e union of t h e n a t u r a l and t h e human i s given a c t i v e

expression i n Prospero 's symbiotic r e l a t i o n s h i p with A r i e l

and Caliban. But human r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not a r t , and i n i ts

h ighes t form r e l a t i o n s h i p can only correspond t o art; and

t h i s i n t u r n i s Prosperoes design f o r Miranda and f o r t h e

play. H i s human r e l a t i o n t o A r i e l and Caliban i s i r recon- i c i l a b l e a t t h e moment Prospero abrogates h i s magical powers

and t a k e s l e a v e of h i s a r t , A r i e l i s re leased t o t h e

elements and Cal iban i s simply dismissed. But as images

of t h e c o n t r a r i t i e s of l i g h t and darkness i n both n a t u r e

and t h e human mind, they remain i n v i s i b l y and p o t e n t i a l l y

p resen t as f igured languages of p o e t i c thought , A r i e l ' s

b r i g h t language, "I flamed amazement...I flame d i s t i n c t l y "

(I , ii, 200) i s synthesized i n t o a t e x t u r e of "organic"

harmony by t h e dark ly t e r r e s t r i a l language of Caliban,

"And I wi th my long n a i l s w i l l d i g t h e e p ignu t s" ( I1 , ii,

1 7 5 ) . Cal iban ' s " p r o f i t on" language is t h e a b i l i t y t o

cu r se ; A r i e l ' s i s t h e a b i l i t y t o express d e l i g h t . Prospero

inc ludes both Caliban and A r i e l when he says he wants

" S p i r i t s t o enforce , a r t t o enchantf'(V, i, 1 4 ) , which i s

t o demand v a l i d a t i o n i n t h e world of h i s own t e l e o l o g i c a l

design i n t h e play. The content of t h i s design is not

discussed by Coler idge, bu t it i s acknowledged b r i e f l y i n

t h e formal terms of methodt " In r e f e r e n c e t o p repara t ion ,

it w i l l be observed t h a t t h e storm and a l l t h a t precedes

t h e t a l e , as we l l as t h e t a l e i t s e l f , s e rve t o develop

completely t h e main c h a r a c t e r of t h e drama as wel l as t h e

design of ~ r o s p e r o " ( C W ~ 2 1 2 ) . - C o l e r i d g e o s observat ions of Caliban and A r i e l a r e

p r imar i ly f o r purposes of i l l u s t r a t i n g Shakespeare's

management of t h e i r gross improbabi l i ty ; but h i s prose

r e v e a l s a sympathetic and enchanted comprehending of t h e

con t ra ry n a t u r e s of t h e s e c r e a t u r e s , Caliban, Coleridge

says , "is i n some ways a noble being: t h e poet has r a i s e d

him far above contemptr he i s a man i n t h e sense of t h e

imaginationr a l l t h e images he uses a r e drawn from na tu re ,

and a r e highly p o e t i c a l ; they f i t i n with t h e images of

A r i e l , Caliban g ives us images from t h e e a r t h , A r i e l images

from t h e air8'(CWS 215). And A r i d "assumes t h e a i r y being,

with a mind s o e l a s t i c a l l y correspondent t h a t when once a

f e e l i n g has passed from i t , n o t a t r a c e i s l e f t behind"

(CWS 214) , Both Caliban and A r i e l a r e "wonderfully con-

ceivedtf but j u s t as wonderful as t h e i r conception i s t h e

manner i n which Shakespeare p r e s e n t s them t o our c o l l e c t i v e

f a c u l t y of imaginat ion, F i r s t , Coler idge d e c l a r e s t h a t

we come t o watch a play because "we choose t o be deceived"

and t h e r u l e of method o r judgment t o be i n f e r r e d from t h i s

4 i s , "Whatever t ends t o prevent t h e mind from p lac ing i t s e l f

o r from being gradual ly placed i n t h i s s t a t e i n which t h e

images have a nega t ive r e a l i t y must be a defectW(CWS 2 0 2 ) .

Coler idge f i n d s The Tempest t o be u t t e r l y without de fec t -

i n t h i s way -- an "almost miraculous" p lay , he says , A 2 r ead ing of i t s c r i t i c i s m r e v e a l s aga in and aga in t h e focus-

wholeness and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e play (and by extension,

a r t i t s e l f ) i s achieved, The events and c h a r a c t e r s d i s -

cussed a t any l e n g t h a r e without except ion circumscribed

by o r r e f e r e n t i a l t o t h e modality of t h e i r being, It is

as i f Coler idge a t t empts t o implant himself wi th in t h e

organiz ing processes of Shakespeare 's methodical i n t e l l e c t

wi th p r i o r knowledge of both The Tempest as a t h i n g of

beauty and of t h e opera t ions of t h e human mind when it i s

i n t h e presence of a r t . These noperat ionst ' a r e as a c t i v e

i n t h e personages who populate t h e p lay as they a r e i n

t h e audience; s o t h a t Coleridge, hold ing c r i t e r i a f o r t h e

presence of t h e un ive r sa l i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r , is eager t o

demonstrate t h e v i s i b l e and a c t i v e presence bf t h e s e c r i -

t e r i a , The p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of t h e p lay a r e seen by Coler-

idge t o c o n s i s t of t h e c h a r a c t e r s a c t i n g , speaking and

be ing a c t e d upon, and t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s a r e shared by

and correspond t o a deducible g e n e r a l i t y c a l l e d t h e "human

mind" of t h e audience, t h e gener ic "you" who has chosen

t o be deceived, but not duped o r b r u t a l i z e d , Coleridge,

as an a r t i s t and as a possessor of a human mind, i n t h i s

sense i d e n t i f i e s both wi th Shakespeare and t h e s p e c t a t o r s , -

and assumes t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of spokesmanship f o r both ,

But while h i s sympathies l i e mainly w i t h t h e work of a r t 2

with both t h e ar t is t and w i t h h i s publ ic p laces Coler idge 's

thought as t h a t "middle q u a l i t y between a thought and a

t h i n g , " and as mediator between s u b j e c t and o b j e c t ,

I have spoken e a r l i e r of Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of

The Tempest as c o n s t i t u t i n g a kind of defense of poet ry ,

and what Coler idge is defending i s t h e r e a l i t y of a r t ,

of poet ry , both as a process and as a v i s i b l e e x t r a c t i o n

from t h e beauty of na tu re . I n order t o r e c a p i t u l a t e my

preceding s ta tements i n t h e form of Co le r idgees c r i t i c a l

d i c t i o n , I w i l l l i s t t h e c h a r a c t e r s and events i n t h e

way Coler idge s e e s them as f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e

organic wholeness of t h e p lay , and t o which Shakespeare

most c l e a r l y app l i ed h i s "exqu i s i t e" judgment and h i s

i n t u i t i v e l y methodical i n t e l l e c t It is "mere pa in fu l

copying" but my purpose i s t o show how Coleridge conceives

of t h e c h a r a c t e r s a s events i n themselves.

(a ) The tempest: ' I , . .prepares and i n i t i a t e s t h e exc i t e -

ment r equ i red f o r t h e e n t i r e p i e c e . , . . i s purposely

r e s t r a i n e d from cconcentering t h e i n t e r e s t on i t s e l f ,

but used merely as an induct ion o r tun ing f o r what

i s t o follown(CWS 203-04).

(b) Mirandar "...the simplicity and tenderness of her

character are at once laid open; -- it would have been lost in direct contact with the agitation of

the first scenel'(CWS 204).

( c ) Prospero-Mirandar "...any thing that might have been

disagreeable to us in the magician, is reconciled

and shaded in the humanity and natural feelings of

the fathern(CWS 204).

(d) Prospero-Miranda (exhibition of "earliest and mildest

proof of magical powerM)t "Prospero, having cast a

sleep upon his daughter,..stops the narrative at the

very moment when it was necessary..,in order to ex-

cite curiosity and yet to give the memory and under-

standing sufficient to carry on the progress of the

history"(CWS 211).

( e ) Arielt "The manner in which the heroine is charmed

asleep fits us for what follows, goes beyond our or-

dinary belief, and gradually leads us to the appear-

ance and disclosure of a being of the most fanciful

and delicate texture, like Prospero, preternaturally

gifted, In this way.,.Ariel...was foreshewn by the <

writer"(CWS 213).

( f ) A r i e l : " . . , h a s an i n t e r e s t i n t h e event , looking f o r -

ward t o t h a t moment when he w a s t o ga in h i s last and

only reward -- simple and e t e r n a l libertyt'(CWS 215).

(g) Calibant "He i s no t seen a t once, h i s voice is heard;

t h i s i s t h e p repara t ion ; he was too o f fens ive t o be

seen first i n a l l h i s deformity, and i n n a t u r e we

do no t r e c e i v e so much d i s g u s t from sound as from

s i g h t " ( ~ w S 215) . ( h ) Ariel-Cal iban: " [ ~ a l i b a n ] does no t e n t e r u n t i l

A r i e l h a s entered l i k e a water-nymph. A l l t h e s t r e n g t h

of c o n t r a s t i s thus acquired without any of t h e shock

of abruptness" (CWS 215) ,

(i) Ferdinand-Miranda: "..,it i s love a t first s i g h t , , .

and it appears t o me t h a t i n a l l cases of r e a l love ,

it i s a t one moment t h a t it t a k e s placeN(CWS 205).

( j ) Miranda-Ferdinand: "The whole c o u r t i n g s c e n e l e e b e -

ween t h e l o v e r s i s a masterpiece; and t h e first dawn

of disobedience i n t h e mind of Miranda t o t h e command

of her f a t h e r i s very f i n e l y drawn, so as t o seem - t h e working of t h e S c r i p t u r a l command, Thou s h a l t

l eave f a t h e r and mother, g&. 01 wi th what e x q u i s i t e

p u r i t y t h i s scene i s conceived and executedI"(~WS 206) . C

( k ) Antonio and Sebast ianr " . . , t he tendency i n bad men t o

indulge i n scorn and contemptuous expressions as a

mode of g e t t i n g r i d of t h e i r own uneasy f e e l i n g s of

i n f e r i o r i t y t o t h e good....without any sense of ad-

mi ra t ion f o r t h e e x c e l l e n t t r u t h s they heard de l iv -

e red , but g iv ing themselves up e n t i r e l y t o t h e malig-

nant and unsocia l f e e l i n g . . . . t h e imagination and fancy

a r e f irst br ibed t o contemplate t h e suggested a c t and

a t l e n g t h t o become acquainted wi th it"(CWS 206 & 216).

(1) Stephano-Caliban-Trinculor " . . . the counterpar t of

[ ~ n t o n i o - ~ e b a s t i a n ] i n low l i f e . . . . t he same e s s e n t i a l

character is t ics"(CWS 207).

Coler idge i s saying throughout t h a t w e t h e audience

p a r t i c i p a t e as t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e p lay achieves i t s e l f

according t o t h e laws a r i s i n g out of Shakespeare's own

n a t u r e . I mentioned e a r l i e r Coler idge ' s defense of t h e

improbabi l i ty of t h e t a l e i t s e l f , and p a r t i c u l a r l y of A r i e l ,

Of t h e t a l e i t s e l f , as a s p e c i e s of romantic drama, Coler-

idge s t a t e s t h a t i t s " e r r o r s i n chronology and geography,

no mortal s i n s i n any s p e c i e s , a r e v e n i a l , o r count f o r

nothing0(CWS 203) . This is a d i f f e r e n t kind of improb-

a b i l i t y than t h a t which confronts us i n Shakespeare's r e -

evidence t o guide o r conf ine us , and t h e few f a c t s handed

down t o us , and admirably employed by t h e poet , a r e suf -

f i c i e n t while we read t o pu t an end t o a l l doubt as t o t h e

c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e storyU(Cws 213). But The Tempest, i n

address ing i t s e l f e n t i r e l y t o t h e imaginat ion, enac t s and

confirms Coler idge 's theory t h a t p r o c r e a t i v e method means

t h a t i d e a and l a w a r e always c o r r e l a t i v e . Coleridge s e e s

t h e presence of t h i s c o r r e l a t i n g a c t i v i t y p a r t i c u l a r l y i n

t h e way Shakespeare has presented A r i e l , f o r "if a doubt T

could ever be e n t e r t a i n e d whether Shakespeare was a g r e a t

poet a c t i n g upon laws ar - i s ing out of h i s own n a t u r e , and

n o t without law. , . that doubt could be removed by t h e charac-

t e r o f A r i e l " ( ~ ~ ~ 214). Coler idge cont inues , and I wish

t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o t h e way i n which he o f f e r s contain-

ment t o t h e c r e a t i o n of A r i e l as pure i d e a wi th in t h e

l awfu l continuum of na ture :

The very first words u t t e r e d by t h i s be ing in t roduce t h e s p i r i t , n o t as a n ange l , above man; n o t a gnome, o r a f i e n d , below man; but while t h e poet g i v e s him t h e f a c u l t i e s and advantages of reason, he d i v e s t s him of a l l mortal c h a r a c t e r , n o t p o s i t i v e l y , it is t r u e , but nega t ive ly , I n a i r he l i v e s , from a i r he d e r i v e s h i s being, i n a i r he ac ts8 and a l l h i s co lours and p r o p e r t i e s seem t o have been obtained from t h e rainbow and t h e s k i e s . There is no th ing about A r i e l t h a t cannot be conceived t o e x i s t e i t h e r a t s u n r i s e o r a t sunse t : hence a l l t h a t belongs t o A r i e l belongs t o t h e d e l i g h t t h e mind is capable of r e c e i v i n g from t h e most l o v e l y ex te rna l appearances,(CWS 214)

A s an i m i t a t i o n of n a t u r e A r i e l comprises an a b s o l u t e

e x t r a c t i o n from t h e beauty i n n a t u r e , t h a t which Coleridge

says t h e a r t i s t must i m i t a t e , and t o which t h e "agreeable"

r e f e r s only n o t i o n a l l y . The b e a u t i f u l i n n a t u r e , Coleridge

says , is i t s "essence ," i t s c o n t i n u a l l y t ransforming and

s e l f - c r e a t i n g synergy. The ar t is tQs a c t of i m i t a t i n g it

makes (poes i s : a making) "na ture thought , and thought

na tu re" and t h i s is t h e making whose synthesized embodi-

ment i s A r i e l i n The Tempest. Coler idge ' s h igh ly poe t i c

s e n s i b i l i t i e s a r e s o enchanted wi th A r i e l t h a t he o f f e r s

a glimpsed moment i n n a t u r e whose sus ta ined correspondence

is captured i n Ar ie l r

Is t h e r e anyth ing i n n a t u r e from which Shakespeare caught t h e i d e a of t h i s d e l i c a t e and d e l i g h t f u l being, wi th such c h i l d - l i k e s i m p l i c i t y , y e t w i t h such p r e t e r n a t u r a l powers? He is n e i t h e r born of heaven nor of e a r t h , b u t , as it were, between both, l i k e a May-blossom kept suspended i n a i r by t h e fanning breeze, which prevents it from f a l l i n g t o t h e ground, and only f i n a l l y , and by compulsion, touching t h e earth,(CWS 215)

This i s t h e tenuous grace of which A r i e l is a r t i f a c t , The

imagination opera tes independently of time and p lace ,

Coler idge t e l l s u s , and h i s glimpse of a suspended May-

blossom reappears a century l a t e r i n t h e realm of a n c i e n t

China whose o r d e r s a r e transformed i n t o t h e world of

Ezra Pound's t h i r t e e n t h Canto which ends wi th t h e image

of a man's e f f o r t t o be knownr

The blossoms of t h e a p r i c o t blow from t h e e a s t t o t h e west,

And I have t r i e d t o keep them from f a l l i n g . 6

So Shakespeare, Prospero, Coler idge, Pound, and t h e i r e f f o r t s

t o know and be known by t h e agency of poes i s . Coleridge

says t h a t t h e poe t ' s own s p i r i t , which has t h e same ground

wi th n a t u r e , "must l e a r n he r unspoken language i n i t s main

r a d i c a l s before he approaches t o her endless compositions

of them. '17 Shakespeare 's composition of Caliban i s t h e

spoken (" f iguredt ' ) language of another of n a t u r e ' s main

r a d i c a l s : "Cal iban. . . is a l l e a r t h , a l l condensed and gross

i n f e e l i n g s and images..."CV?S 2 0 5 ) . Caliban 's power i n

t h e p lay i s l i k e t h e power of t h e e a r t h ' s g r a v i t y which

compels t h e d r i f t i n g May-blossom t o t h e ground, A s A r i e l ' s

c o n t r a r y , Caliban p a r t i c i p a t e s equal ly wi th in n a t u r e and

according t o t h e laws o r i g i n a t i n g wi th in h i s own cor res -

pondent being. Coleridge says ,

The c h a r a c t e r of Caliban is wonderfully conceived.. .,He pa r t akes of t h e q u a l i t i e s of t h e b ru te , but i s d i s t ingu i shed from b r u t e s i n two ways: -- by having mere understanding without moral reason; and by no t possess ing t h e i n s t i n c t s which p e r t a i n t o abso lu te an imals . . . .S t i l l . . . he i s a man i n t h e sense o f - imagination: a l l t h e images he uses a r e drawn from n a t u r e , and a r e highly p o e t i c a l ; they f i t i n with t h e images of A r i e l . (CWS 215)

So t h a t A r i e l and Caliban a r e of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n

i n t h e making of thought na tu re , and n a t u r e thoughtr t h e

magic wrought by t h e t r ans fo rmat iona l power of Prospero 's

a r t i s t r y i n The Tempest.

I w i l l mention by way of c o n t r a s t Coler idge 's unhappi-

ness wi th Goneril and Regan i n King Lear. The a c t i o n s

represented by Goneril and Regan a r e , according t o Coler-

idge , con t ra ry t o n a t u r e i t s e l f ; whereas Caliban and A r i e l

r e p r e s e n t c o n t r a r i t i e s wi th in t h e continuum of na tu re ,

inasmuch as they a r e p o l a r oppos i tes of one another .

Goneril and Regan a r e n o t even v i l l a i n o u s i n t h e sense i n

which they e x i s t and der ive- t h e i r meaning from t h e i r p o l a r

oppos i t ion t o t h e c h a r i t a b l e , l i k e Antonio and Sebas t ian ,

o r even Caliban. I n r e f e r e n c e t o Cal iban ' s i n g r a t i t u d e

Prospero a n g r i l y d e c l a r e s ,

A d e v i l , a born d e v i l , on whose n a t u r e Nurture can never s t i c k ; on whom my pa ins Humanely taken, a l l , a l l l o s t , q u i t e l o s t r And as wi th age h i s 'body u g l i e r grows, So h i s mind cankers . ( I V , i, 191-95)

But Lear ' s embit tered v i t u p e r a t i o n a g a i n s t h i s daughters '

i n g r a t i t u d e is a v i s i o n of t h e i r monstrosi ty t h a t i s a l l

t h e more h o r r i f y i n g because un l ike Caliban they a r e no t

"born d e v i l s " (Cal iban ' s mother i s a witch! h i s f a t h e r an

animal) b u t born humans, Lear ' s own f l e s h and blood:

Down from t h e waist they a r e cen taurs , Though women a l l above; But t o t h e g i r d l e do t h e gods i n h e r i t , Beneath is a l l t h e f i e n d s ; There 's h e l l , t h e r e ' s darkness, t h e r e is t h e

sulphurous p i t , . , , ( IV , v i , 124-28)

Prospero 's f r u s t r a t i o n i n t h e comedy is Lear 's 'madness i n

t h e t ragedy, And a t t h e end of The Tempest Caliban s louches

toward Prospero's cell avowing t h a t mI'll be wise here-

a f t e r , and seek f o r graceW(V, it 295). I n King Lear

Goneril and Regan murder each o t h e r and t h e i r dea ths c l e a r

t h e way f o r t h e r e s t o r a t i o n of grace ,

Cole r idgees c r i t i c i s m of The Tempest is t h e product

of a methodical i n t e n t i o n c a r e f u l l y de l inea ted and con-

s c i o u s l y informed by a n e c e s s i t y t o defend poet ry , t o defend

Shakespeare, and t o defend h i s own r e p u t a t i o n , A s far as

The T e m ~ e s t i t s e l f is concerned, Coler idge makes apparent

t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p l a y e s s t r u c t u r e is a d e l i b e r a t e l y

achieved process and n o t a happy r e s u l t of a n acc iden t of

genius. I n t h i s way Coler idge f u l f i l s h i s promise t o

"provew t h a t Shakespeare's judgment i s Mcommensurate wi th

h i s genius -- nay, t h a t h i s genius r e v e a l s i t s e l f i n h i s

judgment i n i ts most exa l t ed form.' But t h i s is a l s o an

a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e powers of Prospero i n fhe

Tempest and Coler idge remarks p a r e n t h e t i c a l l y t h a t Prospero

i s " the very Shakespeare h imsel f , as it were, of t h e tem-

pestH(cWs 204). And i n another way, " the t a l e i t s e l f

serve[s) t o develop completely t h e main c h a r a c t e r of t h e

drama as wel l as t h e design of ~ r o s p e r o " ( c ~ ~ 212).

The shadows of Shakepseare and Prospero can be per-

ceived, pa l impses t - l ike , beneath Coler idge 's wr i t ing-abou t

them, and I have s t a t e d e a r l i e r t h a t Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m

of The Tempest i s a r e p e t i t i o n o r a r e - t r a c i n g of i t s

c e n t r a l a s s e r t i o n s , It was c l e a r l y n o t Coler idge 's conscious

i n t e n t i o n t o r e p e a t t h e c e n t r a l a s s e r t i o n s of t h e play he

was judging, and t h e minimal i n t e r e s t he d i s p l a y s i n t h e

c h a r a c t e r of Prospero, as we l l as t h e language of t h e t e x t ,

a t t e s t s t o t h i s , E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e forms of shakespeare/

Prospero which emerge i n Coler idge 's w r i t i n g a r e t h e i r

moda l i t i e s , t h e forms extended from a content Coler idge

l e a v e s unsaid. This w a s t h e ha l f -exclus ion so n o t i c e a b l e

i n Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of kin^ Lear and which I deduced,

from t h e q u a l i t y of t h e ex tan t fragments, t o be a f a i l u r e

t o come t o terms wi th t h e metaphorical content of t h e play,

While t h e w r i t i n g s on The Tempest comprise a much r i c h e r

c o l l e c t i o n of c r i t i c a l apprehensions, t h e r e y e t remains

a vacancy a t t h e l e v e l of t h e t e x t i t s e l f , Coler idge

b r i n g s forward very s u c c i n c t l y t h e n a t u r e of c h a r a c t e r as

event , bu t he does n o t a l low t h e same d i s c r e t e a l i v e n e s s

and even t fu l presence f o r language, except by proxyr "Shakes-

peare has evinced t h e power which above a l l o t h e r men he

possessed, t h a t of in t roduc ing t h e profoundest sent iments

of wisdom where they would be l e a s t expected, y e t where

they a r e most t r u l y n a t u r a l , One admirable s e c r e t of h i s

art i s t h a t s e p a r a t e speeches f r equen t ly do n o t appear t o

have been occasioned by those which preceded and which a r e

consequent upon each o t h e r , bu t t o have a r i s e n o u t of

t h e p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r of t h e speakern(CWs 208). Coleridge

i s he re approximating t o a no t ion of t h e language of a

c h a r a c t e r as h i s persona, bu t he succumbs t o h i s consuming

i n t e r e s t i n e q u a l i t i e s and balances and t h e moda l i t i e s

consequent t o t h e i r achievement. Coler idge o f f e r s no

example h e r e from r h e Tempest except t o c i t e , somewhat l a t e r

and i n connection wi th organic r e g u l a r i t y , t h e scene i n

which t h e Boatswain i n t i m i d a t e s Gonzalo. He might j u s t

as e a s i l y have quoted Cal iban 's l o v e l y speech i n Act I11

t h a t when he wakes he c r i e s t o dream aga in , s i n c e Coleridge

i s a f t e r a l l r e f e r r i n g t o " separa te speechesn and t o unex-

pected sources of "profound s ~ n t i m e n t s of wisdom." But

t h e f a c t is t h a t Coler idge almost always apprehends t h e

language of t h e t e x t e i t h e r as dia logue (ve rba l exchanges

between t h e events t h a t a r e c h a r a c t e r s ) o r words as those

"minute touches" which convey t h e p ic turesque -- @.go, "Me,

and thy c r y i n q s e l f . " Coler idge 's concern i s contextua l

and no t t e x t u a l , and h i s engagement wi th t h e t e x t d isappears

i n t o " the wonderful balance between t h e progress ive a c t i o n

and t h e immediate i n t e r e s t of t h e dialoguen(CW~ 102). A s

a self-appointed mediator between Shakespeare and h i s

audience, Coler idge a l s o assumes t h e t a s k of mediat ing

between and d i s c l o s i n g t h e presence of t h e un ive r sa l i n

t h e p a r t i c u l a r a t every l e v e l o f imaginat ive thought, So

t h a t Coler idge becomes t h e vo ice and proponent of methodo-

logy i t s e l f : Shakespeare possesses judgment, and Coler idge

possesses judgment of what it is t o proper ly judge, and of

judgment i t s e l f as a n a c t i v i t y o f method. The verb t o

c r i t i c i z e d e r i v e s from kr ino , t o judge; and i n t h i s sense

it has r a d i c a l l y no th ing t o do wi th exeges is , I n h i s

judgment of The Tempest Coler idge concedes t h a t t h e r e a r e

"many, indeed innumerable, b e a u t i f u l passages [which]

might be quoted from t h i s p lay , independently of t h e aston-

i s h i n g scheme of i t s cons t ruc t ion , Everybody w i l l c a l l t o

mind t h e grandeur of t h e language of Prospero i n t h a t d iv ine

speech where he t a k e s l e a v e of h i s magic a r t ; and were I

t o indulge myself by r e p e t i t i o n s of t h e kind, I should

descend from t h e c h a r a c t e r of a l e c t u r e r t o t h a t of a

mere reciter"(CWS 216). That Coler idge s e e s t h e a c t of

quo t ing " b e a u t i f u l passages" from t h e t e x t as descent t o

mere r e c i t a t i o n , probably expla ins h i s r e l u c t a n c e t o do so.

Fur the r explanat ions inc lude t h e l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by

Coler idge 's c o n t i n u a l l y r e s t a t e d i n t e n t i o n Hnot...so much

t o po in t ou t t h e high p o e t i c powers of Shakespeare but t o

i l l u s t r a t e h i s e x q u i s i t e judgmentM (CWS 218) . Coleridge

p o i n t s out what he assumes has been a l r eady taken f o r

granted -- Shakespeare's high p o e t i c powers -- i n h i s

\

l e c t u r e and w r i t i n g s on "Venus and Adonis," a poem, and

having done t h a t , he proceeds t o t h e drama, and Shakes-

p e a r e ' s judgment.

It is d i g r e s s i v e l y noteworthy t h a t Coler idge 's c r i t i -

cism of The Tempest i n s p i r e s him a t s e v e r a l ins t ances t o

t a k e f u t u r e c r i t i c a l n o t i c e of t h e poems of Milton, par-

t i c u l a r l y wi th regard t o Milton's incorpora t ion of s c r i p -

t u r a l t e x t i n t o h i s own poe t i c d i c t i o n ; and y e t a t t h e

same t ime Coler idge d e s i s t s from a similar exege t i ca l

response t o Shakespeare's language. It i s t y p i c a l of

Coler idge t o a l l u d e t o Shakespeare 's d i c t i o n as be ing

equal t o , o r b e t t e r o r worse than , someone e l s e ' s . I n t h e

t h i r d a c t of King Lear t h e power of Shakespeare's language

i s declared t o be equal t o t h e powers of Dante and Michael-

angelo combined; i n The Tempest Shakespeare is favorably

compared t o Milton and Dante; and Massinger, Beaumont and

F l e t c h e r , and t h e French d r a m a t i s t s t o g e t h e r compose t h a t

hypo the t i ca l "ordinary and vulgar d ramat i s tH who would have

a c h a r a c t e r doing o r say ing something o t h e r than -- and

t h e r e f o r e i n f e r i o r t o -- what Shakespeare has him say ing o r

doing.

F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s t h e l i m i t a t i o n imposed by t h e - e a s y

comprehens ib i l i ty demanded of t h e l e c t u r e form, as wel l as

Coler idge 's se l f -admit ted spontanei ty ( o t h e r s have seen it

<

as d i so rgan iza t ion) as a s t y l e of l e c t u r i n g , Apart from

t h i s i s Coler idge 's genuine concern t o p resen t a b r i g h t l y

e t h i c a l and a l t e r n a t i v e v i s i o n of Shakespeare t o a n

i n t e l l e c t u a l l y demoralized English pub l i c , These a r e

simply n o t t h e cond i t ions informing h i s w r i t t e n and l i t e r a r y

c r i t i c i s m of h i s co l league Wordsworth, i n which t h e r e is

a pa ins tak ing engagement wi th t h e t e x t . But aga in , when

Coler idge is c r i t i c i z i n g Wordsworth he i s c r i t i c i z i n g

poems; and t h e drama p resen t s Coler idge wi th a much d i f -

f e r e n t s e t of c i rcumstances, The c h a r a c t e r s i n a drama

a r e no t merely t a l e n t e d r e c i t e r s of p o e t i c language,

Coler idge sugges ts , but personages who a c t and a r e ac ted

upon and who use language. But even t h e v a l i d i t y of t h i s

d i s t i n c t i o n does n o t expla in what I perce ive as Coler idge 's

ha l f -exclus ion of t h e t e x t of The Tempest, This is n o t

simply t o concur wi th Sylvan Barnet ' s accusa t ion t h a t Col-

e r idge omits ha l f t h e t e x t by concen t ra t ing on t h e begin-

n ings of t h e p lays and p r e f e r r i n g n o t t o d i scuss t h e i r

endings, a l though Barnet ' s sense of t h e l i m i t a t i o n s a r e

i m p l i c i t i n my own concern.

I have repea ted ly s t h t e d t h a t Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m

of The Tempest, r e g a r d l e s s of i t s consciously s t a t e d in-

t e n t i o n s , i s a defense of poet ry and a r e p e t i t i o n of t h e

p lay ' s c e n t r a l a s s e r t i o n s , i n t h e sense i n which Coler idge 's

d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e power of poet ry-and t h e method of

imaginat ive thought a r e p r e c i s e l y those powers and t h a t

methodology demonstrably possessed by Prospero, t h e c e n t r a l

c h a r a c t e r and a c t i v e agent of t h e p lay i t s e l f . Coler idge

i s f l e e t i n g l y aware of t h i s , but he s t o p s s h o r t of a f u l l y

perceived awareness of t h e c h a r a c t e r of Prospero as t h e

wholeness of poe t i c a c t i v i t y n o t only pe r son i f i ed but

a l s o made answerable t o t h e uses made of t h i s magical

power. Prospero's making himself answerable i n t h i s way

t o t h e "human mind" of t h e audience is t h e a b s o l u t e l y

moral concern which informs t h e content of h i s f i n a l speech,

t h e p lay ' s epilogue. For Prospero's powers approximate

t h e powers of t h e d i v i n e and i m i t a t e t h e powers of t h e

d i v i n e , whose f i r s t a c t i o n s a r e t o c r e a t e ; but Prospero

himself is mor ta l and, d ives ted of h i s magical garments,

he s t ands i n need of grace as much as any mortal does,

So t h a t when I speak of Coler idge ' s ha l f -exclus ion of t h e

t e x t of The Tempest, I mean t o say t h a t Coler idge appre-

hends only a small p o r t i o n of t h e wholeness t h a t is

Prospero, and by extension t h e language of t h e t e x t which /\

belongs o r r e f e r s t o t h i s wholeness. And t h i s inadequacy

of v i s i o n on Coler idge 's p a r t amounts t o a n a r t i f i c i a l

E p a r t i t i o n i n g of t h e r e a l i t y t h a t i s The Tempest. The i

manner i n which Coler idge passes over Prospero's epi logue

i s c l o s e r t o a f a i l u r e of love than of i n t e l l e c t , s i n c e

it i s no t t h e grandeur of a language t h a t Shakespeare is

d i s p l a y i n g f o r our c o l l e c t i v e p leasure b u t t h e profoundly

a u t h e n t i c appeal of a n artist f o r human l o v e and mercy,

and t h e kind of grace which t h a t love bestows on art

i t s e l f .

Now I want S p i r i t s t o enforce , a r t t o enchant; And my ending i s d e s p a i r Unless I be r e l i e v e d by prayer , Which p i e r c e s so , t h a t it a s s a u l t s Mercy i t s e l f and f r e e s a l l f a u l t s . A s you from crimes would pardoned be, Let your indulgence s e t me f r e e ,

( V , i, 13-20)

If n o t , h i s p r o j e c t f a i l s , "which was t o p lease ," We know,

even i f Coler idge d i d n ' t , t h a t t h i s is t h e voice of t h e

man Shakespeare a t t h e end of h i s p laywr i t ing ca ree r .

But Coler idge says i n another context and i n t h e form of an

indulgence, t h a t "Shakespeare is of no age -- nor, may I

add, of any r e l i g i o n , o r p a r t y , o r profess ion . The body

and substance of h i s wdrks came out of t h e unfathomable

depths of h i s own oceanic mindW(CWs 106) . The source of

Coler idge ' s awe and admirat ion, t h e r e a l astonishment whose

presence one cont inues t o f e e l i n Shakespearean c r i tXc i sm

everywhere, is simply t h e wonderful competence of a pro-

foundly c r e a t i v e i n t e l l e c t , Such recogn i t ion i s no t bar-

d o l a t r y bu t i n s p i r e d humil i ty . >

Chapter Four

GENIAL CRITICISM AND THE NECESSARY STATEMENT

"The c r i t i c a l n e c e s s i t y i s t o keep t h e moral s t r u c t u r e of immediate knowledge from damage dur ing i t s t r a n s i t i o n a a a " l

Jeremy Prynne

I n t h e autumn of 1814, a B r i s t o l newspaper publ ished

C o l e r i d g e U s * P r i n c i p l e s of Genial C r i t i ~ i s m , " ~ t h r e e essays

which were meant t o review a contemporary e x h i b i t of

A l l s t o n ' s p a i n t i n g s bu t which remained confined t o a

s tatement of a e s t h e t i c p r i n c i p l e s -- what Coleridge c a l l e d

h i s "metaphysical Prel iminaries ." The first of t h e s e

essays proposes as i ts s u b j e c t " the Fine A r t s i n genera l ,

which as far as t h e main p r i n c i p l e s a r e i n ques t ion , w i l l

be r e a l i z e d i n propor t ion t o t h e w r i t e r ' s a b i l i t y ; y e t

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and i l l u s t r a t i o n of them w i l l be confined

t o those of P a i n t i n g and S t a t u a r y , and of these , c h i e f l y

t o t h e formeraw3 A s i n h i s essay "On Poesy o r A r t w Coler-

idge proposes i n t h e Genial Criticism essay t h a t "all t h e

f i n e ar ts a r e d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s of poetry. The same s p i r i t

speaks t o t h e mind through d i f f e r e n t senses by manifes ta t ions

of i t s e l f , a p p r o p r i a t e t o eachmu4 Coler idge 's d e f i n i t i o n

of t h e F ine A r t s i n genera l i n "On Poesy o r A r t " is muta

p o e s i s , mute poet ry , "where mute is t a k e n as opposed no t

t o sound bu t t o a r t i c u l a t e speecham5 The common essence of

a l l , Coler idge says , " c o n s i s t s i n t h e excitement of emotion

f o r t h e immediate purpose of p leasure through t h e medium

of beauty"6 and t h e remainder of h i s * P r i n c i p l e s of Genial

Cr i t ic i sm" is an a t tempt t o d e f i n e beauty, and t h e kinds

of emotions e l i c i t e d by t h e presence of beauty, Coler idge 's

"most genera ln d e f i n i t i o n of beauty i n t h i s essay i s

"Multeity i n Unity,'"l i t s e l f a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of t h e

Pythagorean d e f i n i t i o n of beauty as "THE REDUCTION OF MANY

TO ONE. "* Coleridge o f f e r s as p e r i p h r a s i s *

The sense of beauty s u b s i s t s simultaneous - i n t u i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n of p a r t s , each each, and of a l l t o g whole: e x c i t i n g an immediate and ---- a b s o l u t e complacency, without intervenence, t h e r e f o r e , of any i n t e r e s t , sensual or i n t e l l e c t u a l , 9

The " P r i n c i p l e s of Genial Crit icism' ' ends with an imagined

debate between t h e poet Milton an$ "some s t e r n and preju-

diced Pur i t ann who a r e both s t a n e n g i n f r o n t of York

Cathedra l , Milton i s express ing h i s admirat ion of t h e

c a t h e d r a l ' s beauty whi le t h e Pur i t an i n s i s t s t h a t i t s

beauty is n o t only u s e l e s s , but e x i s t s a t t h e expense of

t h e good and t h e r e f o r e "it d e l i g h t s n o t me." Mil ton 's

f i n a l r e p l y t o h i s companion, "But I d id n o t c a l l it good"

merges i n t o Coler idge 's own d e f i n i n g voice: "The GOOD

c o n s i s t s i n t h e congrui ty of a t h i n g wi th t h e laws of

t h e reason and t h e n a t u r e of t h e will . . .and it is always

d i s c u r s i v e . The Beau t i fu l a r i s e s from t h e perceived

harmony of an object. . .with t h e inborn and c o n s t i t u t i v e

r u l e s of t h e judgment and imaginationa and it i s always

i n t u i t i v e . n 1 O

I n t h e preceding chap te r s of t h i s paper I have attemp-

t e d t o e l u c i d a t e t h e n a t u r e of t h e s e "inborn and con-

s t i t u t i v e rubes of t h e judgment and imaginationH as Col-

e r i d g e a p p l i e s and i l l u s t r a t e s them i n h i s c r i t i c i s m of

Shakespeare 's plays. H i s primary i n t e n t i o n was t o prove

t h a t Shakespeare's judgment was equal t o h i s genius, b u t

I have p re fe r red t o draw upon t h e c o r o l l a r y s t a t e d i n

Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of The Tempest, t h a t Shakespeare's

"genius r e v e a l s i t s e l f i n h i s judgment as i n its most

exa l t ed forman The impl ica t ions of t h i s s ta tement become

t h e fundamental concern of t h e whole c r i t i c a l c p o n inas-

much as it inc ludes and presupposes t h e r e v e l a t o r y and

c o r r e l a t i v e p r inc ip led of method and imagination which

Coler idge had a r t i c u l a t e d o u t s i d e t h e s p e c i f i c context of

t h e Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m . This i s a l s o t h e d e l i b e r a t e

and pedagogical q u a l i t y of what Coleridge himself dec lared

t o be h i s " s t y l e " of pub l i c address . I n a l e t t e r of-1819

which r e p l i e s t o a reques t t h a t another s e r i e s of l e c t u r e s

be undertaken, Coler idge i n s i s t s t h a t "I would no t l e c t u r e

on any s u b j e c t f o r which I had t o a c q u i r e t h e main know-

ledge , even though a month's o r t h r e e months' previous

t ime were allowed me; on no s u b j e c t t h a t had no t employed

my thoughts f o r a l a r g e por t ion of my l i f e s i n c e e a r l i e s t

manhood, f r e e of a l l outward and p a r t i c u l a r purpose. , 8 1 1

I n h i s l e c t u r e no tes f o r The Tempest he s i m i l a r l y dec la res

h i s s t ance as a "genial" c r i t i c t "And t h e more g l a d l y do

I r e c u r t o t h e s u b j e c t from t h e c l e a r convic t ion t h a t t o

judge a r i g h t and wi th t h e d i s t i n c t consciousness of t h e

grounds of our judgment concerning t h e works of Shakespeare

impl ies t h e power and means of judging r i g h t l y of a l l

o t h e r works, those of a b s t r a c t sc i ence a lone exceptedW(CWS

199) . The "Pr inc ip les of Genial Cr i t ic i sm" were meant t o

apply t o t h e art of pa in t ing , but t h a t Coleridge confined

himself t o d e f i n i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e of beauty i n " the f i n e

ar ts i n general" provides t h i s essay ' s re levance t o t h e

works of Shakespeare as a "species" of t h e f i n e arts.

Coler idge 's "genial" c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare i s t h e s e l f -

dec lared t a s k of judging Shakespeare's genius as a reve la -

t o r y content i n c l u s i v e of t h e processes of judgment. Genius,

and what might be descr ibed as judgment, r e s i d e , according

t o Coler idge i n t h e unconscious and t h e conscious r e spec t ive -

l y ; and we must remember t h a t Coleridge preceded Freud i n

t h e r ecogn i t ion o f < t h e f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t s of t h e unconscious

i n conscious a c t i v i t y . *He who combines t h e two," Coler-

idge says , "is t h e man of genius: and f o r t h a t reason he

must pa r t ake of both. Hence t h e r e i s i n genius i t s e l f an

unconscious a c t i v i t y ; nay, t h a t is t h e genius i n t h e man

of genius. "I2 Coleridge' s 'genial* c r i t i c i s m t h e r e f o r e

d i r e c t s i t s e l f toward t h e terms which desc r ibe t h e sources

of t h e sense of beauty -- t o r e p e a t , " t h e Beau t i fu l a r i s e s

from t h e perceived harmony of a n o b j e c t , whether s i g h t o r

sound, wi th t h e inborn and c o n s t i t u t i v e r u l e s of t h e

judgment and imagination; and it is always i n t u i t i v e . "

Coler idge cont inues , and here I wish t o c a l l a t t e n t i o n

t o t h e response of "genia l" c r i t i c i s m t o t h e works of

"genius I " A s l i g h t t o t h e eye, even such i s beauty t o t h e mind, which cahnot but have complacency i n what ever is perceived as pre-configured t o i t s l i v i n g facul - t i e s . Hence t h e Greeks c a l l e d a b e a u t i f u l o b j e c t [ingenious bu t without foundation], i .e. c a l l i n g on t h e s o u l , which r e c e i v e s i n s t a n t l y , and welcomes as something connatura l . l3

The p r i n c i p l e t o which g e n i a l c r i t i c i s m addresses it-

s e l f , then , i s beauty, and t h e sense of beauty i s a t t h e

source of genius. Coler idge ' s welcoming of Shakespeare's

ar t as "something connatural" i s what I descr ibed i n t h e

f i r s t chap te r as Coler idge 's p l a t o n i c l o v e o r p h i l o s f o r

t h e poet ry of Shakespeare. But t h e c r i t i c i s m of Shakes-

peare ' s p lays as an a c t i v i t y of judgment, d i s p l a c e s t h e

complacency of beauty ' s e f f e c t on t h e mind t o a d i s c u r s i v e

realm which by Coler idge ' s d e f i n i t i o n , is contained i n t h e

sense of t h e good. "The GOOD c o n s i s t s i n t h e congrui ty of

a t h i n g wi th t h e laws of t h e reason and t h e n a t u r e of t h e

and Coler idge p laces judgment, and s p e c i f i c a l l y

Shakespeare 's judgment, wi th in t h e a c t i o n s of t h e w i l l ,

i n s o f a r as it is t h e f a c u l t y of choice. I have proposed

throughout my t h e s i s t h a t Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of Shakes-

pea re i s an ethology, and he re I wish t o develop f u r t h e r

t h e presence of t h e e t h i c a l i n t h i s ethology, and i ts

r e l a t i o n t o t h e apprehension of beauty as t h e primary a c t

of "genia l" c r i t i c i s m , S p e c i f i c a l l y , I wish t o r e d e f i n e

Coler idge 's d i f f i c u l t y wi th Kina Lear i n t h i s context .

I n t h e " P r i n c i p l e s of Genial Cr i t ic i sm" Coleridge

d i s t i n g u i s h e s between t h e b e a u t i f u l , t h e good, and t h e

agreeable . H i s summary i s t h i s : "The BEAUTIFUL is t h u s / -

a t once d i s t ingu i shed from t h e AGREEABLE, which is beneath

it , and from t h e GOOD, which is above i t r f o r both t h e s e

have an i n t e r e s t n e c e s s a r i l y a t t a c h e d t o themi both ac t on

t h e WILL, and e x c i t e a d e s i r e for t h e a c t u a l ex i s t ence of

t h e image o r i d e a contemplated; while t h e sense of beauty

r e s t s g r a t i f i e d i n t h e mere contemplation o r i n t u i t i o n ,

r e g a r d l e s s whether it be a f i c t i t i o u s Apollo, o r a r e a l

Ant inous . n15 I n The Tempest Coler idge s e e s t h e c h a r a c t e r

of Miranda as a composite of t h e b e a u t i f u l , t h e ag reeab le

and t h e good, and he deems h e r Shakespeare 's " f a v o u r i t e

c h a r a c t e r , " I n t h a t same p lay , A r i e l , as a s p i r i t u a l being

i n t h e sense of a ~ e n i e , is an e x t r a c t i o n from and an

image of t h e beauty of na tu re , "hence a l l t h a t belongs t o

A r i e l belongs t o t h e d e l i g h t t h e mind is capable of r e -

c e i v i n g from t h e most l o v e l y ex$ernal appearances" (CWS 214) . Thus A r i e l himself p e r s o n i f i e s t h e sense of beauty as wel l

as t h e b e a u t i f u l i t s e l f , and Prospero's own d e s c r i p t i o n of

h i s discovery of A r i e l i n t h e p lay l i t e r a l l y enacts Coler-

i d g e ' s etymology of t h e Greek word f o r a b e a u t i f u l o b j e c t

as a " c a l l i n g on t h e s o u l , which r e c e i v e s i n s t a n t l y , and

welcomes it as something conna tu ra l , ~ r o s p e r o r e f e r s <

t o A r i e l ' s former confinement i n a p ine t r e e "where thou

d i d s t ven t t h y groans / A s fast as millwheels s t r i k e n ( I , ii,

278-79)

Thou b e s t know'st What torment I d id f i n d t h e e i n ; thy groans Did make wolves howl^..,

It w a s mine art , When I a r r i v e d and heard t h e e , t h a t made gape The p ine , and l e t t h e e out .

(I, ii, 286-94)

One of Coler idge ' s p r i n c i p l e s of beauty i n t h e f i n e a r t s i s 2

1 b t h e "balance, t h e p e r f e c t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , e f f e c t e d between

t h e two c o n f l i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s of t h e FREE LIFE, and of

whose c o n f l i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s a r e a r t i c u l a t e d throughout

t h e p lay as c o n f l i c t . But The Tempest a l s o con ta ins another

c r e a t u r e , Cal iban, whom Coleridge desc r ibes as t h e con t ra ry

of A r i e l , and as wonderful a conception (on Shakespeare's

p a r t ) as A r i e l . While A r i e l possesses " the f a c u l t i e s and

t h e advantages of reasonW(CwS 214), Caliban, on t h e o t h e r

hand, "par takes of t h e q u a l i t i e s of t h e b r u t e , but i s d i s -

t ingu i shed from b r u t e s i n two ways: -- by having mere

understanding without moral reason; and by n o t possess ing

t h e i n s t i n c t s which p e r t a i n t o a b s o l u t e animalsn(CWS 215).

Coler idge adds t h a t Caliban i s "a man i n t h e sense of

imaginat ion; a l l t h e images he uses a r e drawn from na tu re ,

and a r e h ighly p o e t i c a l ; they f i t i n wi th t h e images of

Ar ie ln (CW~ 215) -- A r i e l , whom Coler idge desc r ibes as being

n e i t h e r above man nor below man. Coler idge 's exegesis of

t h e c h a r a c t e r s of Caliban and A r i e l d e r i v e s from an appre-

hension of t h e s e two beings as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of two kinds

of metaphysic i n which c e r t a i n e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s a r e a c t i v e

o r i n a c t i v e . Their removal from t h e human order i s rneta-

phor ica l and n o t e x i s t e n t i a l -- A r i e l i s a metaphor of

s p i r i t and Caliban i s a metaphor of body. J u s t as t h e

human body pa r t akes of t h e b e s t i a l i n i ts phys ica l func t ions

and a t t h e same time is conscious gf t h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n ;

and j u s t as t h e human s p i r i t pa r t akes of t h e d iv ine i n i t s

phys ica l c r e a t i o n of a r t i f i c e ; s o Caliban i m i t a t e s A r i e l

and s o A r i e l t ranscends Caliban, Coler idge t e l l s u s t h a t

"body is b u t a s t r i v i n g t o become mind,-- t h a t it is mind

i n i t s essence"18 and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Caliban and

A r i e l i n The Tempest provides him wi th a paradigm of t h i s

metaphysic. And t h e metaphysical i s t h e exclus ive realm

w i t h i n which t h e e t h i c a l can be pos i t ed as p r i n c i p l e , As

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s ( a s opposed t o models

of e t h i c a l behaviour) A r i e l and Caliban a r e t h e r e f o r e

a b s t r a c t c o r r e l a t i v e s wi th in which t h e good, as a conse-

q u e n t i a l a c t i v i t y , i s i n e r t ; and wi th in which t h e b e a u t i f u l ,

as a form of i n e r t i a , becomes consequen t i a l ly a l i v e . This

of course i s my own e x t r a p o l a t i o n from Coler idge 's va r ious

observat ions about The Tempest and t h e assumptions under-

l y i n g them, and I can only suggest here t h a t t h e impl ica t ions

l e n d themselves t o contemporary t h e o r i e s such as those

proposed by Alf red North Whitehead, 19

Coleridge has t o l d u s t h a t t h e "GOOD c o n s i s t s i n

t h e congrui ty of a t h i n g wi th t h e laws of t h e reason and

t h e n a t u r e of t h e w i l l , and i n i ts f i t n e s s t o determine

t h e l a t t e r t o a c t u a l i z e t h e former: and it is a lways-dis -

cu r s ive , " A r i e l then possesses f i t n e s s f o r t h e good s i n c e

he has a l l t h e f a c u l t i e s and advantages of reason, bu t h i s '"

w i l l is n e v e r t h e l e s s a response t o t h e w i l l of Prospero.

Cal iban does n o t possess f i t n e s s f o r t h e good because he

is "without moral reason," and h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e w i l l

of Prospero i s r e a c t i v e and n o t respons ive , Coler idge t e l l s

u s t h a t Cal iban 's "advance t o t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l f a c u l t i e s ,

without t h e moral sense, is marked by t h e appearance of

v i c e , " and w i t h i n t h e p lay t h e a n t i t h e t i c a l q u a l i t i e s of

Cal iban a r e despera te ly expressed by Prospero as t h e d i s -

t a n c e between "nature" and "nurture:

A d e v i l , a born d e v i l , on whose n a t u r e Nurture can never s t i c k ; on whom my p a i n s Humanely taken, a l l , a l l l o s t , q u i t e l o s t t

(IV, i, 191-93)

In h i s c r i t i c i s m of King Lear, however, Coler idge

warns a g a i n s t t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of "what i s admirable -- what our n a t u r e compels us t o admire -- i n t h e mind, and

what is most d e t e s t a b l e i n t h e h e a r t , as co-ex i s t ing i n

t h e same i n d i v i d u a l without apparent connection o r any

modif ica t ion of t h e one by t h e otherW(CWS 179) as they do

i n Goneril and Regan. The reason, poss ib ly , t h a t Coler idge

can acknowledge t h e presence of v i c e i n Cal iban and s t i l l

r e f e r t o him as a "wonderful conception1' i s because Caliban

i s a n imagined s y n t h e s i s and balance of "discordant qua l i -

t i e s , " i , e . t hose of b r u t e i n s t i n c t and human imagination,

The human h e a r t and t h e human mind a r e n o t , however, a n t i -

t h e t i c a l q u a l i t i e s and it has been pointed out t h a t Coler-

i d g e ' s whole system of thought must s t and o r f a l l wi th h i s

c r i t i q u e o f t h e Car tes i an mind-body dualism. Coler idge, i n

e f f e c t , accuses Shakespeare of d i v i d i n g t h e human be ing

a g a i n s t i t s e l f i n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n of Goneril and Regan,

and they a r e t h e r e f o r e "monstrous" and " p i c t u r e s of t h e

pure unnatura l , " I n r e f e r e n c e t o Shakespeare's presen-

t a t i o n of Cal iban, Coler idge n o t e s t h a t "it is i n t h e

primacy of t h e moral be ing only t h a t man is t r u l y human;

i n h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l powers he is c e r t a i n l y approached by

t h e b r u t e s and, man's whole system duly considered, those

powers cannot be considered o t h e r than means t o an end;

t h a t is, t o moralityW(CWS 205),

I n my d i scuss ion of Kinn Lear I s t a t e d t h a t Coleridge

was caught i n a n ends-means dilemma i n h i s c r i t i c i s m of

King Lear and t h a t t h e play i t s e l f t r o u b l e s t h e Kantian 20 c a t e g o r i c a l imperat ive. I n h i s Metaphysics of Morals,

Kant's sense of ends and means i n t h e human realm re-echoes

i n Coler idge 's s ta tement above, Kant says:

I n t h e realm of ends, everyth ing has e i t h e r a va lue o r a worth, What has a va lue has a s u b s t i t u t e which r e p l a c e s it as its equiva lent ; b u t whatever is, on t h e o t h e r hand, exa l t ed above a l l va lues , and thus l a c k s an equiva lent , , , .has no merely r e l a t i v e value,

t h a t is, a pr ice , but r a t h e r an inner worth, t h a t is, d ign i ty , Now morali ty is t h e condit ion i n accordance with which a lone a reasonable being can be an end i n himself, because only through moral i ty is it poss ible t o be an autonomous member of t h e realm of ends, Hence moral i ty and humanity, insofa r as it is capable of moral i ty, can a lone possess d ign i ty ,21

The ca tegor ica l imperative which follows from t h i s is,

"so a c t as t o t r e a t humanity, whether i n t h i n e own person

o r i n t h a t of any o ther , i n every case as an end wi thal ,

never as means merely. 1*22 I suggested i n my discussion of

King Lear t h a t t h e play was an imi ta t ion of an ac t ion

inasmuch as t h e charac te rs were reduced and dehumanized

by t h e ac t ions they were caught i n , The sense i n which

t h e charac te rs of t h e play a r e dehumanized is t h e progres-

s i v e l o s s of d ign i ty each charac te r s u f f e r s as t h e ac t ion

of t h e play proceeds, And it is only because humanity

a lone can possess d ign i ty t h a t we, as humans, a r e moved

t o p i t y and t e r r o r a t t h e s i g h t of Learws madness o r

Gloucester 's blindness. The pure unmotivated e v i l of

Goneril and Regan, t h a t is, t h e i r function as only and

purely t h e means of e v i l , excludes them from t h e realm of

ends o r moral i ty which, as both Coleridge and Kant declare,

i s the autonomous realm of t h e human, According t o t h i s

system of moral i ty, t h e human and Goneril-Regan a r e l

Thus Coleridge's conclusion that "Regan and Goneril are

the only pictures of the unnatural in Shakespeare -- the pure unnatural; and you will observe that Shakespeare has

left their hideousness unsoftened or diversified by a

single line of goodness or common human frailty, whereas

in Edmund, for whom passion, the sense of shame as a

bastard, and ambition, offer some plausible excuses,

Shakespeare has placed many redeeming traitsW(cwS 177).

It is precisely Edmund's motivation for evil which redeems

him in Coleridge's eyes, because his actions partici-

pate in and are directed toward the realm of ends. That

they participate wrongly in the realm of ends makes Edmund

villainous and flaws his humanity, Lear's humanity is

flawed because of his misconception of the realm of ends

and his blindness to the undignified quality of his own

motives, But Goneril's and Regan's seemingly motiveless

evil, combined with their very human ingenuity, produces

monstrosity because of their humanity.

A t the time of this writing it has been suggested to

me that Coleridge's description of Goneril and Regan as

"the pure unnatural" might be a concession to Shakespeare's

genius, and not an admonition to Shakespeare's judgment,

King Lear, I t is c l e a r t o me now t h a t Coler idge 's d i f f i -

c u l t y wi th Kina Lear, and s p e c i f i c a l l y wi th Goneril and

Regan, l i e s p r e c i s e l y i n h i s a e s t h e t i c concession ( a s a

g e n i a l c r i t i c ) t o Shakespeare 's genius at t h e same time

t h a t h i s judgment, h i s sense of e t h i c s and metaphysics,

w a s outraged b y t h e a c t i o n s represented i n Goneril and

Regan, I n o t h e r words, both t h e concession and t h e ad-

monition a r e a c t i v e l y p resen t , and equal ly v a l i d , i n what

I have descr ibed e a r l i e r as Coler idge 's profound ambiva-

l e n c e toward kin^ Lear . Coleridge repea ted ly s t a t e s t h a t

King Lear i s Shakespeare's most tremendous e f f o r t as a

poet , and he remarks upon t h e high degree t o which t h e

poet and t h e d ramat i s t a r e "blendedn i n t h i s p lay , And

y e t a read ing of t h e c r i t i c i s m i t s e l f r e v e a l s only a

dismayed s t r u g g l i n g between Coler idge 's e t h i c a l and h i s

a e s t h e t i c s e n s i b i l i t i e s ,

Goneril and Regan a r e obviously n o t exemplary of

proper hvman conduct, and n e i t h e r i s Edmund nor t h e Steward;

bu t Coler idge nowhere sugges ts t h a t t h e func t ion of a r t

is t o be e x p l i c i t l y d i d a c t i c . Coler idge does be l i eve ,

however, t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n of a r t i s moral inasmuch as

ar t is a human crea t ion8 "all its m a t e r i a l s a r e from t h e

mind and a l l i ts products a r e f o r t h e mind; ,823

It is, t h e r e f o r e , t h e power of-humanizing n a t u r e , of i n f u s i n g t h e thoughts and pass ions of man i n t o every t h i n g which i s t h e o b j e c t of h i s contemplation: c o l o r , form, motion and sound, a r e t h e elements which it combines, and it stamps them i n u n i t y i n t h e mould of a moral idea.24

Coler idge has s t a t e d t h a t ar t acts through t h e medium of

beauty and t h e sense of beauty "not o r i g i n a t i n g i n t h e

sensa t ions , must belong t o t h e i n t e l l e c t . ' Coler idge 's

use of t h e term "moral" c l e a r l y d e r i v e s from Kant when he

d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e human i n t e l l e c t 'cannot be considered

o t h e r than means t o an end, t h a t is, t o mora l i ty , " f o r

"it is i n t h e primacy of t h e moral be ing only t h a t man

is t r u l y human"(CW~ 205). Thus t h e apprehension of beauty

i t s e l f presupposes a n immanence of mora l i ty : ar t , which

acts v i a t h e medium of beauty, is t h e n by d e f i n i t i o n

moral. By v i r t u e of t h e manner i n which art s t a t e s what

i s it a l s o , i m p l i c i t l y , and s imultaneously, s t a t e s what -' ought to be. Coleridge says " v i r t u e c o n s i s t s n o t simply

i n t h e absence of v i c e s , but i n t h e over-coming of them.

So it is i n Beauty. The s i g h t of what i s subordinated

and conquered he ightens t h e s t r e n g t h and pleasure: and

t h i s should be exh ib i t ed by t h e ar t is t e i t h e r inc lus ive -

t l y i n h i s f i g u r e , o r e l s e out of it, and bes ide it t o

i a c t by way of supplement and c o n t r a s t . n25 This

c o r r e l a t i v e and s e l f - r e v e l a t o r y o rde r t h a t Coler idge a s c r i b e s

t o t h e a c t i v i t y of a r t as a moral propos i t ion , is i n t h i s

way t h e containment by and t h e r e v e l a t i o n of t h e e t h i c a l

by ethology, The e t h i c a l proposes i t s e l f more v i s i b l y i n

Coler idge 's s p e c i a l concern t o p l a c e a c t s of v i l l a i n y

w i t h i n a r e l a t i v e and s e l f - r e v e l a t o r y o rde r -- r e l a t i v e ,

t h a t is, t o t h e good. Having dispensed wi th Goneril and

Regan as b e s t he could, Coler idge moves t o t h e o t h e r

a t r o c i t i e s of King Lear. He f i n d s a motive f o r Edmund

and d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e Steward's " u t t e r unredeemable base-

ness'' was a proper a c t of judgment on Shakespeare's p a r t ,

f o r "What could t h e w i l l i n g t o o l of a Goneril be? Not a

v i c e but t h i s of baseness was l e f t open t o himM(CWS 184).

Coler idge i s dismayed by t h e b l i n d i n g of Gloucester ("my

r e l u c t a n c e t o t h i n k Shakespeare wrong, y e t , , .") bu t i n

t h e L i t e r a r y Remains r e p r i n t , Coler idge proposes "poet ic

j u s t i c e n as Gloucester 's proper due f o r h i s cont inuously

i n s e n s i t i v e t rea tment of Edmund:

Add t o t h i s t h a t wi th e x c e l l e n t judgment, and provident f o r t h e claims of t h e moral sense, f o r t h a t which r e l a t i v e l y t o t h e drama i s c a l l e d poe t i c j u s t i c e ; and as t h e f i t t e s t means f o r r e c o n c i l i n g t h e f e e l i n g s of t h e s p e c t a t o r s t o t h e hor ro r s of G l o s t e r g s a f t e r s u f f e r i n g s -- at l e a s t of r ender ing them somewhat l e s s unendurable ( f o r I w i l l n o t d i s - gu i se my convic t ion t h a t i n t h i s one po in t t h e t r a g i c has been urged beyond t h e outermost mark and = - p l u s u l t r a of t h e dramatic) -- Shakespeare has precluded a l l excuse and p a l l i a t i o n of t h e g u i l t incurred by both t h e p a r e n t s of t h e base born Edmund by Glos ter ' s

confess ion t h a t he was a t t h e t ime a married man and a l r e a d y b l e s t wi th a l awfu l h e i r of h i s fortunes.(CWS 180)

Coler idge is not forced t o invoke "poe t i c j u s t i c e " i n The

Tempest i n o rde r t o provide a moral framework f o r otherwise

a r b i t r a r y a c t s of v i l l a i n y , b u t then n e i t h e r is The Tempest

a t ragedy, and t h e e v i l wi th in it is n o t of the ' same

pass iona te q u a l i t y as t h a t w i t h i n Kina Lear. The bad

c h a r a c t e r s i n The Tempest e x i s t as complement ,supplement

and c o n t r a s t t o t h e good c h a r a c t e r s i n The Ternnest and t h e

e v i l c h a r a c t e r s i n o t h e r p lays ,

I n t h i s p lay a r e admirably sketched t h e v i c e s gener- a l l y accompanying a low degree of c i v i l i z a t i o n : and i n t h e f i r s t scene of t h e second a c t Shakespeare has , as i n many o t h e r p laces , shown t h e tendency i n bad men t o indulge i n scorn and contemptuous expressions, as a mode of g e t t i n g r i d of t h e i r own uneasy f e e l i n g s of i n f e r i o r i t y t o t h e good,.,,Shakespeare never p u t s h a b i t u a l scorn i n t o t h e mouths of o t h e r than bad men .,..The scene of t h e intended a s s a s s i n a t i o n of Alonzo and Gonzalo is a n exact coun te rpa r t of t h e scene between Macbeth and h i s l ady , only p i tched a t a lower key through out.,..(^^^ 206)-

As poe t i c j u s t i c e i s t o King Lear; p o e t i c f a i t h i s t o The

Tempest. J u s t i c e i n t ragedy and f a i t h i n comedy a r e t h e

p r e v a i l i n g methodologies of harmony r e s t o r e d o r dec lared

by dramatic a r t , The a c t i v i t i e s of j u s t i c e and f a i t h i n

dramatic a r t s h a r e t h e poe t i c as d e f i n i t i o n , n o t as ad- t ;

junct ion , S i m i l a r l y , King Lear does no t provide t h e s e t t i n g

f o r t r a g i c a c t i o n bu t r a t h e r i s t h e expression of it. The

e t h i c a l apart from t h e order of e thos which is t h e whole-

n e s s of p o e t i c s y n t h e s i s , is t h e merely agreeable and

t h e merely good which r e f e r only n o t i o n a l l y t o beauty.

Coler idge ' s d e f i n i t i o n of beauty as "mul te i ty i n uni ty"

germinal ly e n t e r s h i s sense t h a t " the o b j e c t of a r t is

t o g ive t h e whole [of na ture] horninem! hence each s t e p

of n a t u r e ha th i ts i d e a l , and hence t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of

a climax up t o t h e p e r f e c t form of a harmonized chaos. 1126

S i m i l a r l y -- and h e r e we e n t e r t h e realm of t h e e thologi -

c a l as n a t u r a na tu rans -- "each t h i n g t h a t l i v e s has i ts

moment of se l f - expos i t ion , and s o has each period of

each t h i n g , i f we remove t h e d i s t u r b i n g f o r c e s of acc ident . \

To do t h i s is t h e bus iness of i d e a l art....And each t h i n g

t h a t only appears t o l i v e has a l s o its p o s s i b l e p o s i t i o n

of r e l a t i o n t o l i f e , as n a t u r e h e r s e l f t e s t i f i e s , who

where she cannot be, prophesies h e r be ing i n t h e c r y s t a l -

l i z e d meta l , o r t h e i n h a l i n g p l a n t . ,827

The human mind i n t h e presence of ar t can f e e l any

number of t h i n g s depending upon any number of circumstances, i b u t what it is e s s e n t i a l l y responding to, is Beauty, o r L E t h e absence of it. Beauty is c r e a t e d when t h e ar t is t

i m i t a t e s t h e b e a u t i f u l i n n a t u r e , " f o r s o only can he hope

t o produce any work t r u l y n a t u r a l i n t h e ob jec t and t r u l y

human i n t h e e f f e c t , "28 Coleridge contends t h a t t h e t r u e

drama is i m i t a t i o n , which f o r him impl ies t h e presence of

both l i k e n e s s t o and unl ikeness from t h e r e a l i t y which is

imi ta ted -- and n o t copy, i n which any d i s s i m i l a r i t y is a

defec t r

, ,,with r e s p e c t t o a work of genuine i m i t a t i o n you begin with an acknowledged t o t a l d i f f e r e n c e , and then every touch of n a t u r e g ives you t h e p leasure of an approximation t o t r u t h , The fundamental p r i n c i p l e of a l l t h i s is undoubtedly t h e h o r r o r of falsehood and t h e l o v e of t r u t h inheren t i n t h e human b r e a s t , The Greek t r a g i c dance r e s t e d on t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s , and I can deeply sympathize i n imagination wi th t h e Greeks i n t h i s f a v o r i t e p a r t of t h e i r t h e a t r i c a l exhib i t ions .29

The f e e l i n g of p l e a s u r e co inc iden t wi th t h e sense of beauty . is coinc ident a l s o t o " the l o v e of t r u t h inheren t i n t h e

human b reas t . " Thus t h e a c t of a e s t h e t i c judgment is

i t s e l f b u i l t upon t h e i n t u i t i v e and t ru th - lov ing sense of

beauty, f o r we judge t h e dramatic a r t good o r bad, Coler-

idge says , according t o whether t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s a

c o r r e c t o r an i n c o r r e c t i m i t a t i o n , And t h e preroga-

t i v e of men of genius t o c r e a t e "cor rec tH i m i t a t i o n s ,

One example w i l l s u f f i c e -- i n Herbert Read's words, " the

b l i n d i n g sword which he d r i v e s between t h e t a l e n t s of

Beaumont and F l e t c h e r and t h e genius of Shakespearer It30

What had a grammatical and l o g i c a l cons is tency f o r t h e e a r , what could be put toge the r and represented by

t h e eye, t h e s e poets Beaumont and F l e t c h e r took from t h e e a r and eye, unchecked by any inward i n t u i t i o n of a n inward i m p o s s i b i l i t y , j u s t as a man might f i t to- ge the r a q u a r t e r of an orange, a q u a r t e r of a n apple , and t h e l i k e of a lemon and a pomegranate, and make it look l i k e one round d i v e r s e f r u i t . But n a t u r e , who works from wi th in by evolu t ion and a s s i m i l a t i o n , according t o a l a w , cannot do it. Nor could Shakes- peare , f o r he t o o worked i n t h e s p i r i t of n a t u r e , by evolving t h e germ wi th in by t h e imaginat ive power according t o an idea -- f o r as t h e power of s e e i n g i s t o l i g h t , s o is an i d e a i n mind t o a law i n na ture . They a r e c o r r e l a t i v e s t h a t suppose one another.31

This is another s ta tement of what I have c a l l e d t h e pr in-

c i p l e of ethology i n Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare,

and i n o rde r t o avoid redundance, I l e t it s tand as pe r i -

p h r a s i s and r e c a p i t u l a t i o n , Ethology is a p r i n c i p l e which

a t once informs t h e beauty of those forms c rea ted by

Shakespeare 's genius , and t o which Coler idge 's "genial t '

c r i t i c i s m , h i s i n s p i r e d sense of beauty, responded. The

enthusiasm, and ata t imes almost hyperbol ic energy, of

Coler idge 's c r i t i c a l d i c t i o n -- "01 with what e x q u i s i t e

p u r i t y t h i s scene i s conceived and executedl Shakespeare

may sometimes be g r o s s but I bold ly say t h a t he is always

moral and modest. Alas! i n t h i s our day decency of man-

ners,. .Letc.]" -- i s c l e a r l y a func t ion of t h e p leasure

he d e r i v e s from h i s mental occupation wi th Shakespeare's

art . The term "Shakespeare's art" can only be used

g e n e r i c a l l y , because f o r Coler idge it is t h e apex configur-

a t i o n of t h e syn thes iz ing imagination, inseparab le from

t h e i d e a s of form, i m i t a t i o n , beauty, mora l i ty and genius.

Coler idge 's undisguised p leasure t h e r e f o r e cannot be per-

v e r t e d t o ba rdo la t ry as such, i f only because such p leasure

i s s o f i r m l y rooted i n t h e i n t e l l e c t , and is s o c l e a r l y an

i n t e l l i g e n t i a l a c t . And I need no t add t h a t Coler idge 's

dismay is as undisguised as h i s p leasure , and as i n t e l l i g e n t

as h i s p leasure . For " i n o rde r t o d e r i v e p leasure from

t h e occupation of t h e mind, t h e p r i n c i p l e of u n i t y must

always be p resen t , so t h a t i n t h e midst of t h e m u l t e i t y

t h e c e n t r i p e t a l f o r c e be never suspended, nor t h e sense be

f a t i g u e d by t h e predominance of t h e c e n t r i f u g a l fo rce .

This u n i t y i n m u l t e i t y I have elsewhere s t a t e d as t h e

p r i n c i p l e of beauty, ,, 32

It has been s t a t e d , and I f u l l y concur, t h a t Coler idge 's

c r i t i c a l concerns cannot be f a i r l y separa ted from h i s meta-

phys ica l concerns; and indeed one c r i t i c , a l s o i n f u l l

concurrence, speaks of Coleridge' s "metacr i t ic i sm . ,t 33

Having confined myself t o Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of Shakes-

peare, and i n p a r t i c u l a r t o Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m of King

Lear and The Tempest, I have proposed ethology i n an at tempt - t o b r idge t h e gap between a e s t h e t i c s and metaphysics, and

t o g ive coherence t o t h e methodology of Coler idge 's c r i t i -

cism, inasmuch as Coler idge made t h e c r i t i c i s m of method

t h e b a s i s of h i s a e s t h e t i c s , I have shown how method i t s e l f ,

as Coler idge conceives it, is presen t i n t h e p r i n c i p l e of

ethos1 and how e thos i t s e l f , as t h e d i s c r e t e f i g u r a t i o n s

of Shakespeare 's thought i n t h e c h a r a c t e r s of h i s p lays ,

i s p resen t as ind iv idua t ion . Since Coler idge 's c r i t i c i s m

of King Lear problemat ica l ly e n t e r s t h e realm of t h e

e t h i c a l , I have at tempted i n t h i s concluding chap te r t o

demonstrate t h e mora l i ty o f . t h e e t h o l o g i c a l both as a

p r i n c i p l e of beauty and as a p r i n c i p l e of "genia lw c r i t i c i s m ,

Such a demonstration, however, i s doomed t o inadequacy

because it is f i n a l l y wi th in t h e realm of metaphysics,

and no t l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

t h e good and t h e b e a u t i f u l can be pos i t ed as p r i n c i p l e .

The Tempest provides Coler idge wi th a metaphysical para-

digm i n t h e forms of Cal iban and A r i e l , and I have excori-

a t e d Coler idge 's remarks about t h a t p lay i n an a t tempt t o

r e v e a l a mainstream philosophy of a r t which, needless t o

say , Coler idge himself d id n o t c o n s t r u c t as a se l f -conta ined

and d e f i n i t i v e s ta tement , I have

c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare and i n a

a e s t h e t i c w r i t i n g s , only examples

con jec tu res wi th in t h e boundaries

found, i n Coler idge 's

l i m i t e d f i e l d of h i s

on which t o base c e r t a i n

I have declared as

ethology. Herbert Read, i n r e f e r e n c e t o Coler idge 's meta-

physics , speaks of a "mansion of thought whose foundat ions

were l a i d by Kant and whose g l i t t e r i n g p innacles were

completed by Coler idge, Novalis and Kierkegaard. n34 h d

it is i n deference t o t h e sub l imi ty of a s c h o l a r l y concern

which would e n t e r t h i s mansion of thought t h a t I r e f e r t h e

r e a d e r t o Owen B a r f i e l d ' s inva luab le c o n t r i b u t i o n t o Coler-

idgean s c h o l a r s h i p e n t i t l e d What Coler idae Thought, 35

Apart from t h e forms and p r i n c i p l e s of metaphysics

as such is t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between theory and p r a c t i s e ;

t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l and t h e a c t u a l . I t is wi th in t h i s

r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t we a r e a b l e t o ga the r a s e n s i b i l i t y of

t h e f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t s and l i m i t a t i o n s of Coler idge 's

c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s , The p r o p o s i t i o n a l and t h e p r a c t i c a l

a r e n o t o f t e n as mutually r e f e r e n t i a l as c r i t i c a l conven-

i ence would d e s i r e , f o r artists c o n s t r u c t t h e o r i e s accor-

d ing t o a p ro jec ted sense of what they themselves would

be i d e a l l y capable of producing, and t h e r e is much t h a t

coheres i n t h e realm of t h e i d e a l , A c r i t i c who would

expound as a mat te r of i n t e g r i t y t h e wedded f i d e l i t y of

theory t o p r a c t i s e , f o r g e t s t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is funda-

mental ly one of _expedience and v i s i o n , However, i n a con-

t e x t i n which ' i l l u s t r a t i o n of p r i n c i p l e s " i s t h e d e f i n i t i v e

i n t e n t , as it is i n Coler idge ' s c r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare,

t h e r e l a t i o n between theory and p r a c t i s e must be approached

1 as a c e n t r a l i s s u e , P a r a l l e l wi th i t s o f t e n i l l u m i n a t i v e

and sublime q u a l i t i e s a r e t h e i n t e r n a l and f u n c t i o n a l

d i s tu rbances of a c r i t i c i s m which t a k e s Shakespeare, and

n o t h i s p lays , as i ts s t a r t i n g po in t . A s a c r i t i c i s m of

method, Coler idge 's concerns p ivo t upon t h e p ropos i t iona l ,

and p ropos i t ions a r e e n t i t i e s which guide t h e p o t e n t i a l

i n t o t h e realm of t h e a c t u a l ; t h e i n v i s i b l e i n t o t h e

v i s i b l e . Apart from t h e d i s c r e t e and i n n a t e l y t r u t h f u l

i n t e n t of t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l i s t h e enclosure of p r a c t i s e

by theory , and I have shown t h a t when Coler idge 's adher-

ence t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e sometimes enfeebles t h e

c r i t i c i s m it is n o t because t h e theory is wrong b u t because

it o b s t r u c t s h i s v i s i o n of t h e obvious. The c e n t r a l pro-

p o s i t i o n t o which t h e Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m r e f e r s is

organic form, b u t Coler idge 's i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h e organic

form of Kina Lear, f o r example, d e r i v e s from a n imposed

o rde r ing of content : poe t i c j u s t i c e as t h e guardian of

t h e e t h i c a l , Indeed Coleridge' s s t r u c t u r i n g o f Kine: Lear

s t ands upon an a rguab le assumption -- t h a t Edmund overhears

t h e remarks Gloucester makes about him i n t h e first scene of

t h e p lay , Glouces ter ' s remarks would presumably have a

h i s t o r y of i n s e n s i t i v i t y behind them, bu t t h e p lay i t s e l f

begins where it begins and ends where it ends: a smail loop

i n t h e th read of a specula ted l i n e a r i t y of events , Linear

cause-and-effect r e a l i t y is mechanical form i n i ts most

seduc t ive a spec t , and Coler idge 's t i r e l e s s motive-hunting

f o r Shakespeare's v i l l a i n s i s a r e l a t i v e l y harmless capi tu-

l a t i o n .

The d i a l e c t i c i n t e l l e c t incorpora tes both i l l u s t r a t i o n

and p r i n c i p l e , p ropos i t ion and a c t u a l i t y as t h e images and

n o t t h e r e f e r e e s of one another . For Coler idge t h e a c t u a l

i s i t s e l f t h e first p r i n c i p l e of a c t u a l i z a t i o n : "exis tence

is i ts own pred ica te . " But h i s r e f u s a l t o p r e d i c a t e t h e

ex i s t ence of e v i l on t h e same grounds and wi th in t h e realm

of a r t i f i c e only g ives a s s e n t t o h i s convic t ion t h a t t h e

artist is requ i red t o impose t h e c a t e g o r i e s of moral r e -

f l e c t i o n upon t h e images of na turer t o make thought na tu re ,

and n a t u r e thought , Co le r idgeos map of t h e process r e -

mained a map. Herbert Read t e l l s u s t h a t "it was l e f t f o r

Kierkegaard t o pronounce t h e a b s o l u t e ~ i t h e r / ~ r -- e i t h e r

t h e a e s t h e t i c a l qr t h e e t h i c a l , The f i n a l beauty, f o r

Coler idge and S c h e l l i n g no l e s s than f o r Kierkegaard, was

t h e beauty of ho l iness ; but it was l e f t t o Kierkegaard t o

po in t out . . . that i n t h e s t a t e of h o l i n e s s we have passed

beyond t h e spheres of n a t u r e and of art and a r e i n t h e It36 -

sphere of freedom, of t h e e t h i c a l .

Coler idge is w e l l wi th in t h e realms of n a t u r e and of

ar t when he speaks o f 4 t h e two fundamental c o n f l i c t i n g

p r i n c i p l e s of t h e "Free L i f e n and t h e "Confining Form,"

It has been t h e concern of t h i s paper t o propose t h e

e t h o l o g i c a l as a s y n t h e s i s of t h e s e two p r i n c i p l e s , keeping

i n mind as much as p o s s i b l e t h a t it is only i n t h e r e t a i n -

i n g of t h e oppos i te energies of each t h a t it can be

c a l l e d a syn thes i s : and only i n t h e compromising of t h e

oppos i t e ene rg ies of each t h a t it can be c a l l e d a Thesis ,

APPENDIX

Samuel Taylor Coleridge' s c r i t i c i s m of W i l l i a m Shakes-

peare ' s dramatic art has been c o l l e c t e d i n t o a composite

e d i t i o n by Terence Hawkes and t i t l e d Co le r idgees Wri t inps

on Shakespeare (New York, 1959). I n 1969 t h e book was

re i s sued as p a r t of t n e Penguin Shakespeare Library and i ts

t i t l e emended t o Coler idge on Shakespeare -- t h i s e d i t i o n

would be of i n t e r e s t p r imar i ly t o s t u d e n t s of Shakespeare.

Hawkes' 1959 e d i t i o n of Coler idge ' s Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m

is t h e t e x t I have consul ted throughout my t h e s i s and

primary a d d i t i o n a l ma te r i a l has been brought forward from

t h e Biographia L i t e r a r i a and The Friend. Hawkes' e d i t i o n

a l s o draws on r e l e v a n t sources o u t s i d e t h e Shakespeare

c r i t i c i s m proper , which i s composed of l e c t u r e no tes ,

margina l ia , newspaper reviews, a u d i t o r s ' t r a n s c r i p t i o n s

and fragments from essays.

The most complete t e x t of t h e Shakespeare c r i t i c i s m

t h a t we possess r e l a t e s t o John Payne C o l l i e r ' s t r a n s -

c r i p t i o n from shorthand n o t e s of t h e 1811-12 s e r i e s of

l e c t u r e s , which included Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m wi th in its

prospectus. (Between 1808 and 1819 Coler idge

e i g h t s e r i e s of l e c t u r e s which included Shakespeare i n i ts

t o p i c s . ) There were seventeen l e c t u r e s given i n t h e 1811-12

X s e r i e s and C o l l i e r a t tended e i g h t of them. He t r ansc r ibed i

l e c t u r e s 1, 2 and 3 almost immediately a f t e r hea r ing themi

t h e o t h e r s were t r a n s c r i b e d a t some l a t e r d a t e , But t h e

t e x t t h a t C o l l i e r published i n 1856, e n t i t l e d Seven Lectures

on Milton and Shakespeare, w a s cons t ruc ted from n o t e s he

s a i d he found i n a bureau drawer i n 1854, f o r t y - f i v e yea r s

a f t e r h i s a t tendance a t t h e l e c t u r e s ( s e e Notes and Quer ies ,

J u l y and August 1854, f o r C o l l i e r ' s announcement of h i s

"discovery,") The t e x t he produced is a v a i l a b l e i n t h e

two-volume Shakespearean C r i t i c i s m ed i t ed by Thomas Middle-

t o n Raysor -- t h e s tandard t e x t of Co le r idgees Shakes-

pearean c r i t i c i s m .

R e A . Foakes, i n h i s e d i t i o n of t h e 1811-12 l e c t u r e s

e n t i t l e d Coler idge on Shakespeare (London, 1971). documents

c e r t a i n susp ic ions regarding t h e r e l i a b i l i t i e s of both

Henry Nelson Coler idge, who produced t h e heavi ly ed i t ed

L i t e r a r y Remains; and of John Payne C o l l i e r , who adored

Coler idge and'whose r e s u r r e c t i o n of shorthand n o t e s i n

1854 and t h e i r subsequent p u b l i c a t i o n aroused enough sus-

p ic ion t o send C o l l i e r t o cour t . C o l l i e r maintained t h a t

he had destroyed t h e s e n o t e s a f t e r t r a n s c r i b i n g them.

The t e x t t h a t R. A . Foakes g ives us i s C o l l i e r ' s o r i g i n a l

longhand t r a n s c r i p t i o n , toge the r with Foakes* own t r a n s -

c r i p t i o n of what su rv ives of t h e o r i g i n a l shorthand n o t e s *

Foakes is concerned t o determine what was a c t u a l l y s a i d

i n t h e s e l e c t u r e s and what was poss ib ly f a b r i c a t e d by Col-

l i e r , Overt f a b r i c a t i o n would be d i f f i c u l t t o prove, bu t

t h e r e a r e enough d i sc repanc ies between t h e o r i g i n a l no tes

and t h e t r a n s c r i b e d ve r s ions t o warrant some concern. Con-

temporary newspaper accounts of Co le r idgees l e c t u r e s bear

o u t t h e genera l con ten t of t h e l e c t u r e s as recorded by

C o l l i e r ; and Coler idge himself , i n keeping with h i s

d e s i r e f o r spontanei ty , wrote out h i s l e c t u r e s on only a

very few occasions, and of t h e s e only fragments remain.

The d i sc repanc ies I have r e f e r r e d t o a r e mainly l i n g u i s t i c

and s y n t a c t i c a l , so t h a t t h e danger l i e s n o t s o much

w i t h i n a l t e r a t i o n of meaning as wi th in pervers ion of sense.

A s i n g l e example should s u f f i c e f o r comparative purposes.

A s fol lows, quo ta t ion (a) is from C o l l i e r ' s o r i g i n a l

t r a n s c r i p t i o n of Lecture 9 (1811). and quo ta t ion ( b )

i s t h e same sentence as it appears i n t h e Terence Hawkes

e d i t i o n , which i s t h e e d i t i o n I a m using. Hawkes* source

f o r t h e l e c t u r e m a t e r i a l i s t h e T o M. Raysor e d i t i o n which

i n t u r n i s t h e t e x t C o l l i e r produced i n 1856 as Seven

Lectures on Milton and Shakespeare.

(a ) ,, .Shakespeare has shown t h a t power which above a l l o t h e r men he possessed, t h a t of in t roduc ing t h e pro- foundest sent iments of wisdom j u s t where they would be l e a s t expected, and y e t where they a r e t r u l y na tur - a l ~ and the admirable s e c r e t of his drama was t h a t t h e s e p a r a t e speeches do n o t appear t o be produced t h e one by t h e former, but t o a r i s e out of t h e

p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r of t h e speaker.1

Shakespeare has evinced t h e power which above a l l o t h e r men he possessed, t h a t of in t roduc ing t h e profoundest sent iments of wisdom where they would be l e a s t ex- pected, y e t where they a r e most t r u l y n a t u r a l . & admirable s e c r e t of h i s a r t is t h a t s e p a r a t e speeches f r equen t ly do n o t appear t o have been occasioned by those which preceded and which a r e consequent upon each o t h e r , but t o have a r i s e n ou t of t h e p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r of t h e speaker.(^^^ 208. My i t a l i c s . )

A t r u l y verbatim r e p o r t was of course a mechanical impos-

s i b i l i t y , and one can understand C o l l i e r ' s impulse t o p o l i s h

both h i s own and Coler idge ' s prose. But a p a r t from t h e

more r i c h l y l a t i n a t e t e x t u r e of t h e prose of t h e second

ve r s ion , is t h e a l t e r a t i o n I have noted i n i t a l i c s . The

d i f f e r e n c e between " t h e admirable s e c r e t of h i s dramaH

and "one admirable s e c r e t of h i s art" i s a l i t t l e more

t h a n academic, s i n c e t h e " s e c r e t H i t s e l f i s cont ingent

upon t h e l o c a t i o n of language i n Shakespeare's p lays , /

t h a t is, whether t h e language i s born of t h e c h a r a c t e r s

o r whether it i s p r i o r t o them, I n t h i s context it makes

a l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e t o know i f Coleridge w a s r e f e r r i n g t o

Shakespeare 's "drama" o r t o h i s "ar t$" and t o know i f

Coler idge was speaking of "2 admirable s e c r e t w o r simply

"one - admirable s e c r e t I' among many.

Two d i f f e r e n t kinds of motives have been designated t o

account f o r Coler idge 's f a i l u r e t o publ i sh h i s l e c t u r e s .

Norman Fruman, i n Coler idge, The Damaged Archangel

York, 1971) would have us b e l i e v e t h a t Coleridge f e l t g u i l t y

about h i s p lagiar i sms from Schlegel , and moreover t h a t such

f e e l i n g s of g u i l t were h ighly warranted. I s h a l l r e t u r n

t o Fruman's concerns momentarily. I n Method and Imagination

i n C o l e r i d ~ e ' s C r i t i c i s m (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), however,

J . R. de J. Jackson proposes a view based on t h e outward

circumstances of Coler idge 's l i f e as we l l as h i s h a b i t s of

work. The outward circumstance was t h e f i n a n c i a l need

which determined Coler idge 's acceptance of t h e l e c t u r e -

s h i p s , and Jackson p o i n t s out t h a t Coler idge himself regar- I

ded t h e s e l e c t u r e s as a type of hackwork. This is n o t t o

suggest t h a t t h e i r content was thereby degraded, but r a t h e r

t o confirm Coler idge 's own r e l u c t a n c e regarding t h e i r

pub l i ca t ion . Jackson quotes a l e t t e r of Coler idge 's where

he mentions having received a n a p p l i c a t i o n from t h e Royal

I n s t i t u t i o n f o r a course of l e c t u r e s . Coler idge f e l t t h a t

t h i s was nsomething..aI must do, & t h a t immediately, t o

g e t money -- & t h i s seems both t h e most r e spec tab le , & t h e

l e a s t unconnected wi th my more s e r i o u s l i t e r a r y plans. ,, 2

Nor had Coler idge ' s f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n improved by 1811,

when t h e London Phi losophica l Soc ie ty made i ts o f f e r . The

o r i g i n of The Fr iend a t t h i s t ime was similar, and Coler idge 's

first r e f e r e n c e t o it was t o "a plan, which secures from

1 2 t o 20 Lpounds] a weekmn3 I n both c a s e s , Coleridge

continued t o i n s i s t upon t h e v e r i t y of h i s long-standing

i n t e l l e c t u a l preoccupations and h i s i n t e n t i o n t o produce

more sys temat ic works i n t h e f u t u r e . I n Jackson's words,

Coler idge ' s books, l i k e h i s l e c t u r e s , r ep resen t temporary d i v e r s i o n s from t h e main stream and s e l e c t e d t o p i c s r e l e v a n t t o it....It w a s t h e ex i s t ence of t h i s main stream t h a t made him conf ident of having something new and important t o say. He w a s coerced by circum- s t a n c e s i n t o be ing s a t i s f i e d with pe r iphera l comrnuni- c a t i o n of h i s i d e a s , and he w a s no doubt comforted i n t h i s predicament by t h e convic t ion t h a t h i s ideas were growing t h i n g s and n o t e t ready t o be presented formally and sys temat ica l ly . g

r

As far as t h e l e c t u r e s a r e concerned, Jackson claims t h a t

Coler idge 'is seeking t o communicate s e r i o u s l y wi th t h e

publ ic t h o s e parts of h i s thought which seemed r e l e v a n t

t o i s s u e s of t h e t ime and on which he might be considered

s p e c i a l l y q u a l i f i e d t o speak. " 5 Coleridge' s own a s s e r t i o n s

about t h e q u a l i t y of h i s c r i t i c i s m and h i s pedagogical

methods a r e sympathet ica l ly r e i t e r a t e d by Jackson, and

t h e remainder of Jackson's book draws from t h e mainstream

of Co le r idge8s thought i n o rde r t o d i s c l o s e t h e n a t u r e of

Coler idge 's c r i t i c a l methodology and i ts conceptual b a s i s .

On t h e o t h e r hand, some r e c e n t scho la r sh ip has endeav-

oured t o determine t h a t any d i r e c t i o n taken by a s tuden t

of Coler idge ' s Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m must proceed from

an account ing of Coler idge 's "debt" t o A . W. Schlegel .

Such indebtedness has been r e l e n t l e s s l y pursued i n t h e

i n t e l l e c t u a l c laims cour t pres ided over by Norman Fruman

i n Coler idge, The Damaped Archangel (New York, 1971) .

Fruman is concerned t o expla in t h a t a pa thologica l condi t ion

of Co le r idgees p e r s o n a l i t y accounts f o r t h e extens ive , and

f o r t h e most p a r t unacknowledged, borrowings. What emerges

is a p i c t u r e of Coler idge as magnif icent ly p i t i a b l e , That

t h e book is as much c h a r a c t e r a n a l y s i s as it is a work of

scho la r sh ip ought t o be a n important f a c t o r when one i s

t o cons ider t h e d i f f e r e n c e between amateur psychoanalysis

and l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m ; and between personal p i t y and

a e s t h e t i c compassion. Frumkn's own l a r g e s s e i n t h e s e

matters is urged upon t h e r e a d e r t h i s way:

Only by t h e r e f l e c t e d l i g h t s and i n s i g h t s t h a t every aspec t of h i s c a r e e r c a s t s upon every o t h e r can w e make sense of t h i s t r a g i c and immensely important l i f e . Only by understanding t h e power and t h e tumult of t h e f o r c e s contending f o r mastery wi th in t h i s tormented be ing can we cease t o be as tonished a t t h e s p e c t a c l e of decept ion, evasion, and a l l manner of falsehood i n a man wi th exa l t ed moral p r inc ip les .6

More t o t h e p o i n t , however, is a chap te r of t h e book

e n t i t l e d "The Shakespearean Cri t ic ism." Here Fruman's

competent and r e l e n t l e s s scho la r sh ip produces an exh ib i t ion

of f a c t s which a r e hard ly t o be argued with, as f a c t s . A

case might be made a g a i n s t t h e a b s o l u t e va lue of unforgiving

scho la r sh ip as an a c t i v i t y b l i n d t o t h e consequences of

i t s motives -- consequences such as t h e devalua t ion of

grea tness t h a t i s r e a l and profound. Fruman claims a

"profound respec t " and a "deep personal a f f e c t i o n H f o r

Coler idge, but t h e s e must become empty sent iments t o an

i n t e l l e c t which, f o r example, c o n s i s t e n t l y confuses o r ig in -

a l i t y wi th novel ty. Owen B a r f i e l d made t h e va luab le d i s -

t i n c t i o n between o r i g i n a l i t y and novel ty i n h i s In t roduc t ion

t o What C o l e r i d ~ e Thought, but throughout The Damaged Arch-

angel we a r e asked t o suspect Coler idge 's ideas where

Fruman has found t h a t similar i d e a s were a c t i v e i n t h e

thought of o the r s . And i n h i s eagerness t o corrobora te f

t h e assumptions he has made about Coleridge' s charac te r ,

Fruman i s c o n s i s t e n t l y i n c l i n e d t o s e l e c t passages from

Coler idge ' s w r i t i n g s which a r e intended t o poin t t o an

i n e p t i t u d e o r an ignorance where n e i t h e r r e a l l y is a c t u a l ,

For \ instance, i n t h e chap te r about t h e Shakespearean c r i t i -

cism, Fruman responds t o a s tatement of Coler idge 's about

t h e i n t e g r a l c o r r e c t n e s s of words wi th in Shakespeare's

t e x t , by charging t h a t t h e s e a r e "as ton i sh ing claims t o

anyone who knows t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r y of an a c c u r a t e Shakes-

pearean t e x t ."? (Fruman seems t o be "astonished" by much.)

The impl ica t ion is t h a t Coler idge had no cognizance of

t h e s e ma t t e r s , and y e t Coler idge s a i d i n h i s n i n t h l e c t u r e

of t h e 1811 s e r i e s t

I say noth ing h e r e of t h e s t a t e - i n which h i s t e x t has come down t o us , f a r t h e r than t h a t it is evident ly very imperfect ; i n many p laces h i s sense has been perver ted , i n o t h e r s , i f n o t e n t i r e l y obscured, so b lunder ingly represented , as t o a f f o r d us only a glimpse of what he meant, without t h e power of r e s - t o r i n g h i s own expressions. But whether h i s dramas have been p e r f e c t l y o r imperfec t ly p r i n t e d , it is q u i t e c l e a r t h a t modern inqu i ry and specu la t ive ingen- u i t y i n t h i s kingdom have done nothing; o r I might say , without a solecism, l e s s than noth ing ( f o r some e d i t o r s have mul t ip l i ed co r rup t ions ) t o r e t r i e v e t h e genuine language of t h e poet . (CWS 89)

Fruman ques t ions t h e profundi ty of i n s i g h t u s u a l l y

a s c r i b e d t o Coler idge 's Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m , and he

a t t empts t o prove t h a t very l i t t l e remains of t h a t body

of c r i t i c i s m t h a t is n e i t h e r borrowed, s t o l e n nor incor-

r e c t , The c r u c i a l concern is t h e " inf luence" of A . W.

Sch lege l ' s s e r i e s of Shakespeare l e c t u r e s c o l l e c t e d i n

Vorlesunaen uber dramatische Kunst und L i t e r a t u r (1810)

and presented t o Coleridge on o r about 1 2 December 1811,

a f t e r h i s having de l ive red t h e e igh th of t h e London Philo-

sophica l Soc ie ty l e c t u r e s , There i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence

as t o t h e exact d a t e and manner i n which Coleridge came

i n t o con tac t with Schlegel ' s i d e a s about Shakespeare, but

t h e f a c t remains t h a t t h e r e a r e remarkable s i m i l a r i t i e s

wi th , if n o t d i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n s of Schlegel ' s w r i t i n g s

beginning p a r t i c u l a r l y with t h e t w e l f t h l e c t u r e of t h a t

s e r i e s , and permeating remarks pe r iphera l t o t h e l e c t u r e s .

Among t h e appropr ia t ed i d e a s a r e the- d i f f e r e n c e s between

orgzlnic and mechanical form; t h e t i t l i n g of Shakespeare

as a romantic d ramat i s t ; t h e defence of Shakespeare 's

mora l i ty ; t h e c e r t a i n laws of p o e t i c c r e a t i o n ; and some

i d e a s about t h e c r e a t i o n of c h a r a c t e r s . Coleridge, however,

i n s i s t e d t h a t he had proposed i d e a s similar t o Sch lege l ' s

i n h i s own l e c t u r e s e r i e s of 1808, be fo re pub l i ca t ion of

t h e Vorlesungen i n 1810. And i n 1811, when Coler idge

mentions i n l e c t u r e t h e work of a "German c r i t i c , " it is

n o t s o much t o p r a i s e Schlegel . except as t h e "sent iments

and opin ions are coinc ident wi th those t o which [colaridge]

gave utteranceW(CWS 8 8 ) , as it is t o d isparage t h e s t u p i d i t y

and shor t -s ightedness of English c r i t i c s . "Providence

has given England t h e g r e a t e s t man who ever put on and put

off m o r t a l i t y , and has thrown a sop t o t h e envy of o t h e r

n a t i o n s by i n f l i c t i n g upon h i s n a t i v e country t h e most

incompetent c r i t i c s " (CWS 8 8 ) , Coler idge dec la res . And i n

h i s concern t o in t roduce campet ence t o English Shakespearean

c r i t i c i s m , he in t roduces t h e i d e a s of Schlegel . But by

i n c o r p o r a t i n g them i n t o h i s own remarks, o r i n t o t h e f a b r i c

of h i s own thought , he l e f t himself vulnerable t o charges -

of plagiar ism.

There a r e a few main p o i n t s I wish t o make i n regard

t o t h e i s s u e of t h e p lagiar i sms. The f i r s t is t h a t they

cannot be denied, and it is n o t my i n t e n t i o n t o demean t h e

se r iousness of i n t e l l e c t u a l t h e f t o r t h e h i s t o r i c a l in jus -

t i c e done t o Schlegel , if indeed both c o n s t i t u t e t h e case ,

as Fruman i n s i s t s , Nor is it my i n t e n t i o n t o e i t h e r make

c h e e r f u l excuses f o r Coleridge o r t o j o i n a chorus of

condemnation. Rather , I contend t h a t t h e i s s u e of t h e

p lagiar i sms is more e f f e c t i v e l y placed i n a l a r g e r context

of thought , one t h a t inc ludes t h e p o s s i b i l i t e s of co inc i -

dence and i n t e n t i o n . I have spoken of Coler idge 's con-

tempt f o r t h e - c r i t i c a l work of t h e English s c h o l a r s , and,

as i f t o expla in such a r e g r e t t a b l e condi t ion , Coleridge

s t a t e s t h a t " t h e English have become a busy commercial ,

peopleN(CWS 88), The Germans, on t h e o t h e r hand, "unable

t o d i s t i n g u i s h themselves i n a c t i o n , have been dr iven t o

specula t ion: a l l t h e i r f e e l i n g s have been forced back i n t o

the t h i n k i n g and reasoning rnindu(CWs 88), I n 1799 Coler-

idge w a s drawn t o t h i s s p e c u l a t i v e Germany s t r o n g l y

enough t o a t t e n d f o r a s h o r t t ime t h e Univers i ty of

Gottingen, where both t h e Sch lege l s were academically pres-

ent, By a l i g n i n g himself wi th A . W. Schlegel ' s thought,

and i n h i s concern t o claim Shakespeare f o r t h e England

t h a t Shakespeare had loved, Coler idge i s proposing t h a t

a p a r t i c u l a r c r i t i c a l method be a t t h e vanguard of a l l

t h a t is newly e x c e l l e n t i n English Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m ,

I f e e l , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t it is t h i s l a r g e r context of a n

alignment of thought , o r an a l l i e d s e n s i b i l i t y , which

should be t h e concern of t h o s e who a r e anxious t o d iscover

where Schlegel ' s i d e a s end and Coler idge 's i d e a s begin,

If t h e ~ o l e r i d g e / ~ c h l e g e l c r i t i c a l canon i s seen as a

p a r a l l e l i s m o r a c o n t i g u i t y hold ing t o a commonly d i s -

covered ph i losoph ica l t r a d i t i o n , then t h e i s s u e of t h e

p lagiar i sms can t a k e i ts p lace wi th in t h a t s t r u c t u r e and

become t h e d e f i n i t i o n of it and n o t t h e economics of it.

The d i f f e r e n c e s between Coleridge and Schlegel a r e

as remarkable as t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e , I must d i sagree

wi th Fruman's r a t h e r crude suggest ion t h a t Coler idge 's

Shakespearean c r i t i c i s m is merely a second-rate copy of

Schlegel ' s . The p r i n c i p a l d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t Schlegel

wrote a s e r i e s of essays whose e f f o r t of thought was

formally s u s t a i n e d , Coler idge gave a n o r a l , and more o r

l e s s spontaneous, p r e s e n t a t i o n of i d e a s , Schlegel was

a dedica ted p h i l o l o g i s t and a t r a n s l a t o r of O r i e n t a l

poetry. Coler idge w a s p r imar i ly a t eacher , and h i s own

poet ry , c r i t i c i s m and conversa t ion were informed by

e c l e c t i c knowledges, Both were known f o r t h e i r learned

and e legan t d i s c u r s i v e n e s s ~ each gave i n t e l l e c t u a l a s s e n t

t o t h e o t h e r .

An a n t i d o t e t o Fruman's kind of scho la r sh ip is t h a t

of Owen Bar f i e ld i n What Coler idge Thought and a n exemplum

of t h e p o s s i b l e scope and g e n i a l i t y of a scho la r sh ip

which conerns i t s e l f wi th t h e c o n t i g u i t y and coincidence

of thought is The Pound Era ( ~ e r k e l e y , 1971) by Hugh

Kenner. A work of such magnanimous imagination is needed

f o r t h e Coler idge e r a , e s p e c i a l l y when t h e scho la r sh ip has

degenerated t o d i s p a r a t e opin ions about t h e r e l a t i v e

wickedness of plagiar ism. The forthcoming Col lec ted Works

under t h e genera l e d i t o r s h i p of Kathleen Coburn, should

a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y se rve t h a t demand,

NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE

1 Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Biographia L i t e r a r i a , ed, J. Shawcross, 2 vols . ( ~ x f o r d t Oxford Univ. Press , 1969), 11, 235. Herea f t e r c i t e d as " B L e H n

3 Coler idge ' s Wri t ings on Shakespeare, ed. Terence Hawkes ( ~ e w York: Capricorn Books, l 9 5 9 ) , p. 47. Herea f t e r c i t e d c o n t e x t u a l l y as "CWS, '' 4 M a M a Badawi, "Coleridge's Formal C r i t i c i s m of Shakespeare's P lays ," Essays i n Cr i t i c i sm, 10 (1960).

5 Barbara Hardy, "'I have a smack of Hamlet's Coleridge and Shakespeare 's Charac ters ," Essays i n Cr i t i c i sm, 8 (1958).

6 Hardy, p c 246.

7 Hardy, p. 246.

9 Selec ted Poetry and Prose of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. Donald S t a u f f e r (New York: Random House. 1951). D. 571. - - . - Quoted by Owen ~ a r f i e l d , What oler ridge- Thoupht l ~ i d d l e t o w n , Conn.: Wesleyan Univ. Press , 1971) , p a 49.

10 Samuel Taylor Coler idge, "Aids t o Ref lec t ion , " T& Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed, W.G,T, Shedd ( ~ e w Yorkr Harper & Brothers , 1884), I, 195,

1 4 The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed, Kathleen Coburn, double vo l s . (Text and Notes), (New Yorkr Bollingen Foundation, 1957 and 1961) , I1 (Tex t ) , #2370.

1 6 Owen Bar f i e ld , What Coler idge T h o u ~ h t (Middletown, Conn.8 Wesleyan Univ. Press , 1971) , Pa 48.

NOTES t o Chapter One, cont 'd .

18 Norman Fruman, Coleridge, The Damaged Archangel (New Yorkr George B r a z i l l e r , Inc. , 1971) ,

19 George S t e i n e r , "S.T.C.", The New Yorker (August 27, 19731, P* 83.

20 Hardy, p a 240,

21 Quoted by Hardy, p a 239.

22 Hardy, p. 242.

23 Hardy, p. 229.

24 See Coler idge ' s Wri t ings on Shakespeare, p a 140,

25 Hardy, p. 244,

26 Hardy, p. 246,

27 Hardy, ' p a 243.

28 M , M. Badawi, 'Coleridge's Formal Cr i t i c i sm of Shakes- pea re ' s P lays ," p, 150,

29 Badawi, p. 152,

30 Badawi, p, 158,

31 Badawi, p , 162.

32 Badawi, p a 159,

33 J , R, de J , Jackson, Method and Imagination i n Coleridge's Cr i t i c i sm (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ, Press , 1969) ,

38 See B a r f i e l d , p. 31 and p a 201n.

NOTES t o Chapter One, cont 'd.

5

39 B a r f i e l d , p. 36.

43 D r Johnson on Shakespeare, ed, W , K. Wimsatt (~armonds- worth: Penguin Books, 1969) , p a 68.

45 D r Johnson on Shakespeare, p a 74.

46 I b i d , P O 59.

47 S, T. Coler idge, " P r i n c i p l e s of t h e Science of Method," The Fr i end , ed. Ha N. Coleridge (New Yorkt Harper & Brothers , 1884) 11, 416-17.

49 BL ii, 259.

50 " P r i n c i p l e s of t h e Science of Method," The Fr iend, 11, 418,

53 S, Tm Coler idge, Shakespearean C r i t i c i s m , ed, T, M a Raysor ( ~ o n d o n t J . M a Dent, 1960) 11, 72.

NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO

1 I use t h e nega t ive p r e f i x "ir" t o form " i r r e a l " i n order t o p r o t e c t t h e word from t h e a e s t h e t i c and e n r e connotat ions of " s u r r e a l " and t h e nega t ive enthusiasm of t h e c u r r e n t use of "unrea l , " The word " i r r e a l " sugges ts a self-consuming r e a l i t y , and Rene Gilson has used t h e word i n a commentary e n t i t l e d Jean Cocteau ( ~ e w Yorkt Crown Publ ishers , 1969) t o d e s c r i b e t h e e f f e c t Cocteau sought i n h i s f i l m s .

- -151 -

NOTES t o Chapter Two, cont 'd ,

2 Sylvan Barnet, "Coleridge on ~ h a k e s p e a r e ' s V i l l a i n s , Shakespeare Q u a r t e r l y , 7 (1956), p. 9.

3 Sylvan Barnet, "Coleridge on Shakespeare's V i l l a i n s , " p. 10.

4 Barnet, p. 10.

5 W i l l i a m Shakespeare, King Lear, 2nd. ed, , The Pel ican Shakespeare (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1970).

6 Barnet , p. 11 ,

7 Barnet , p. 11.

1 2 W i l l i a m Wil leford, The Fool and H i s Scepter (Chicago: Northwestern Univ, Press , 1969) , p. 13.

13 W i l l i a m Wil le ford , The Fool and H i s Scepter , p. 13.

14 Wil le ford , p. 210,

15 I b i d , p. 214,

1 6 I b i d , p. 217,

18 Wil le ford , p. 213.

19 Alf red Harbage, "Kinn Lear a an In t roduc t ion , Shakespeare The Tragedies , ed , Alfred Harbage, Twentieth-Century Views (Englewood C l i f f s , N ,J. r Prent ice-Hall , l 964) , p. 115.

NOTES t o Chapter Two, cont 'd ,

24 John Keats, Se lec ted Poetry and ~ e t t e r s , ed, R. H. Fogle (New Yorkr Rinehart & Co., 1960), p a 303 a

25 I b i d .

26 I b i d . Keats may have a t t ended some of Co le r idgegs l e c t u r e s on Shakespeare o r have subscribed t o The Friend -- it is probable t h a t Keats w a s i n some way d i r e c t l y exposed t o contemporary Coleridgean thought ,

27 M a Merleau-Ponty, The E s s e n t i a l Wri t ings of Merleau- Ponty, ed, A . La F i s h e r (New Yorkr Harcourt , Brace & World, I n c , , 1969) ' p. 194,

28 Merleau-Ponty, The E s s e n t i a l Wri t ings of Merleau-Ponty, Pa 199,

NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE

1 B L I 1 , 257,

4 W i l l i a m Shakespeare, The Tempest, 2nd, ed,,The Signet C l a s s i c Shakespeare (New Yorkr The New American Library , 1964) ,

6 Ezra Pound, The Cantos of Ezra Pound, 2nd p r i n t i n g , ( ~ e w Yorkr New Di rec t ions , l 9 7 l ) , p a 60.

NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR

1 Jeremy Prynne, "Charles Olson, Maximus Poems I V , V, V I , " Draft Transc r ip t ion of t h e F u l l P a r i s Review Tape, ed-, Ralph Maud (Simon F r a s e r Univers i ty , 1971) ,

NOTES to Chapter Four, cont0d.

11 Quoted by J. R. de J. Jackson, Method and Imagination in Coleridge's Criticism, pa 9 .

13 BL 11, 243 and 314n.

19 A. Ha Johnson, Whitehead's Theory of Reality (New Yorkr Dover Publications, 1962). Johnson's delineation of White- , head's relation to other philosophers such as Kant, Des- cartes, Spinoza and Liebnitz, is particularly illuminative

E with regard to the derivations and extensions of Coleridge's 1 thought,

20 All quotations from Kant are taken from Ernst Cassirer, Rousseau, Kant and Goethe (New Yorkt Harper & Row, 1963). CassirerOs source is his own collected edition of Kants Werke, 11 volumes (Berlinr Bruno Cassirer Verlag, 1912).

21 Ernst Cassirer, Rousseau, Kant and Goethe, p a 11.

22 Cassirer, pa 32. I

24 BL 11, 253. My italics.

NOTES t o Chapter Four, cont 'd .

25 BL 11, 263.

26 BL 11, 262.

27 BL 11, 259-60.

28 BL 11, 2590

29 BL 11, 256.

30 Herbert Read, "Coleridge as C r i t i c , " Sewanee Review, LVI (1948).

31 Quoted by Herbert Read, "Coleridge as C r i t i c , " pp. 612-13.

32 BL 11, 262.

33 Howard H. Creed, "Coleridge's Metacri t ic ism," PMLA, 69 (1964).

34 Herbert Read, p. 599.

35 Owen B a r f i e l d , What Coler idge Thoupht (Middletown, C0nn.t Wesleyan Univ. Press , 1971).

36 Herbert Read, pp. 618-19.

NOTES TO APPENDIX

1 R . A . Foakes, Coler idge on Shakespeare ( ~ o n d o n t Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1971) , p. 106.

2 J . R, de J . Jackson, Method and Imagination i n Coler idge 's Cr i t i c i sm, p . 8.

3 Jackson, p . 3.

4 Jackson, pp. 10-11.

5 Jackson, p. 10.

6 Norman Fruman, Coleridge, The Damaged Archangel, p a 420.

7 Fruman, p. 162.

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, M. H. Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature. New Yorka

W. W. Norton, 1971.

Appleyard, J . A . Coleridge' s Philosophy of Literature. Cambridge, Mass.r Harvard University Press, 1965.

Badawi, M. M. "Coleridge's Formal Criticism of Shakes- peare's Plays." Essays in Criticism. 10 (1960). 14-8-62

Barfield, Owen. What Coleridge Thought. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1971.

Barnet, Sylvan. "Coleridge on Shakespeare's Villains."

Shakespeare Quarterly. 7 (1956), 9-20.

Barth, J. Robert, S.J. "Symbol as Sacrament in Coler- idge's Thought." Studies in Romanticism. Vol. 11.

No. 4 (l9?2), 320-31.

Cassirer, Emst. Rousseau, Kant and Goethe. New Yorkt Harper & Row, 1963.

Coleridge, S. T. Biowaphia Literaria. Ed. J . Shawcross. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.

Coleridge, S. T. Poetical Works. Ed. E. H. Coleridge. London; Oxford University Press, 1969.

Coleridge, S , T. Shakespearean Cr i t i c i sm. Ed. T , M e Raysor. 2 v o l s . London; J . M e Dent & Sons, 1960,

Coler idge, S. T. The Fr iend, Ed. H , N. Coleridge. New York: Harper & Brothers , 1884,

Coler idge on Shakespeare (The t e x t of t h e l e c t u r e s of 1811-12). Ed. R e A . Foakes, London; Routledge &

Kegan Paul, 1971,

Coler idge 's Wri t ings on Shakespeare. Ed. Terence Hawkes.

. I n t r o d . by Alf red Harbage. New Yorkt Capricorn Books,

1959 . The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Ed. Kathleen

Coburn. Double vo l s . (Text and Notes). New Yorkt Bollingen Foundation, 1957 and 1961.

Creed, Howard H. "Coleridge's Metacrit icism." PMIA.

69 (1954), 1160-80.

E l i o t , T. S. "Shakespearean Cr i t i c i sm I. From Dryden t o Coler idge," A Companion t o Shakespeare S tud ies . Ed.

Granv i l l e Barker and G , B e Harrison. (1964), 287-99.

Fruman, Norman. Coler idge, The Damaged Archangel, New York a

George B r a z i l l e r , Inc. , 1971.

Gilby, Thomas. Poet ic Experience. New Yorkt Russe l l -&

Russe l l , 1967.

Harbage, Alf red . "King Lear t an In t roduct ion . " Shakes- pearer The Tragedies. Ed. A . arba age. Englewood

C l i f f s r Prent ice-Hall , 1964.

Hardy, Barbara. "'I have a smack of Hamlet': Coleridge and Shakespeare 's Characters." Essays i n Cr i t ic i sm.

8 (1958)s 238-55,

House, Humphry. Coleridge. Londonr Rupert Hart-Davies, 1962.

Kant, Immanuel. Observations on t h e F e e l i n g of t h e Beauti-

f u l and Sublime. Trans. by John T. Goldthwait. Berkeley; Univers i ty of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1960.

Jackson, J . R . de J . "Coleridge on Dramatic I l l u s i o n and

Spec tac le i n t h e Performance of Shakespeare's Plays." Modern Philology. 62 (19641, 13-21.

Jackson; J . R . de J . Method and Imagination i n Coler idge 's

Cr i t i c i sm. Cambridge, Mass.8 Harvard Univers i ty

P ress , 1969.

Johnson, A . H a Whitehead's Theory of Real i ty . New Yorkr Dover Pub l i ca t ions Ltd. , 1962.

D r Johnson on Shakespeare. Ed. W . K. W i m s a t t . Harmonds-

worth; Penguin Books, 1969.

Leavis, F. R . "Coleridge i n Cr i t ic i sm." Scrut iny . v o l e I X , No. 1 (1940), 57-69.

McKenzie, Gordon. Organic Unity i n C o l e r i d ~ e . Berkeley: Univers i ty of C a l i f o r n i a Press , -1973.

O r s i n i , G , N . G , Coler idee and German Ideal ism. Carbon- d a l e ; Southern I l l i n o i s Univers i ty P ress , 1969,

O r s i n i , G-. N . G. "Coleridge and Schlegel Reconsidered . " Comparative L i t e r a t u r e , Vol. X V I , No. 2 (1964), 97-118.

Read, Herbert . "Coleridge as C r i t i c . " Sewanee Review. LVI (1948) 597-624

Wil le ford , W i l l i a m , The Fool and H i s Scepter . Chicagor Northwestern Univers i ty P ress , 1969.

Zukovsky, Louis. Bottom; On Shakespeare, 2 v o l s , Austin; Unive r s i ty of Texas Press , 1963.