remarks that 'Wordsworth represents much, as, unknown to him, the German philosophers have done, that by the imagination the mere fact is exhibited in its connection with infinity". But Wordsworth's views would doubtless have largely gained in clearness, could he have maintained his exchange of ideas with Coleridge on a distinction which their intercourse had originated in years long past. To Robinson at least it seemed that Coleridge's own exposition of the subject had the effect of greatly illuminating 'Wordsworth's obscure discrimination '.2

VI. THE 'BIOGRAPHIA LITERARIA'.

In April 1816, after years of wandering, Coleridge found what proved to be a lasting home under the Gillmans' roof at Highgate. In December of the same year a visit was paid to him by Crabb Robinson, to whom Coleridge spoke of his memoirs, then about to appear, and gave the account of imagination and fancy alluded to above. Of fancy he spoke 'as not holding that place in a chart of the mind which imagination holds'; 'and which' (the Diary adds) 'he has in his Lay Sermon so admirably described.' 3

The 'Lay Sermon' here alluded to is that published in 1816 under the title of The Statesman's Manual, and 'the memoirs' are the two volumes of the Biographia Literaria which appeared in July of the following year, some twenty months after it was first placed in the printer's hands. In the 'Lay Sermon 'the discussion of the imagination is quite incidental to the main subject: it is the Biographia Literaria

1 Compare e. g. Jean Paul (Vorschule der Aesthetik, ii. 7): 'Die Phantasie macht alle Teile zu Ganzen'.

2 Diary, &c., Sept. 10, 1816; ib., Dec. 26, 1816. Fancy is defined as 'memory without judgment'.

See Supplementary Note for a fuller account of the genesis of the Biographia Literaria.

which contains Coleridge's first and last genuine attempt to expound his conception of its nature.

The variety of motives which gave rise to the Biographia Literaria reveals itself in the miscellaneous character of the work. Intended in the first instance as a preface to the Sibylline Leaves, it grew into a literary autobiography which itself came to demand a preface. This preface itself outgrew its purposed limits, and was incorporated in the whole work, which was finally issued in two parts -the autobiography (two vols.) and the poems.1 Originally, no doubt, Coleridge's motive in writing the preface was to explain and justify his own style and practice in poetry. To this end it was necessary that he should state clearly the points on which he took exception to Wordsworth's theory. All this, however, seemed to involve an examination of the nature of poetry and the poetic faculty: and this in its turn suggested, if it did not demand, a radical inquiry into the preconditions of knowledge in general. To Coleridge, as we have seen, the distinction of fancy and imagination was a distinction of equal import for philosophy and for poetry. But having thus been led to a consideration of fundamental problems, there was danger that he would pursue them for their own sake; especially when the occasion was afforded him of attacking his old bugbear, the mechanical philosophy. This uncertainty of aim is illustrated in a letter of July 1815.1 After writing that he has given 'a full account (raisonné) of the controversy concerning Wordsworth's poems and theory,' he adds, 'I have elaborated a disquisition on the powers of association and the generic difference between the fancy and the imagination. . . . One long passage I did not (wholly) insert, but I certainly extended and elaborated with a view to your perusal, as laying the foundation-stone of,

1 Letters to Dr. Brabant, printed in Westm. Review, April and July 1870.

the constructive or dynamic philosophy, as opposed to the merely mechanic.' Coleridge's vagueness of language leaves it uncertain to what part of the work he is here referring; but it seems not unlikely that the passage which he elaborated, but did not insert, was the missing portion of the chapter 'On the imagination, or esemplastic power'.

In the opening page of the work itself, Coleridge anticipates the charge of a personal motive in writing. 'The narration' (he writes) 'has been used chiefly for the purpose of giving continuity to the work, in part for the reflections suggested to me by particular events: but still more as introductory to a statement of my principles in Politics, Religion, and Philosophy, and the application of the rules, deduced from philosophical principles, to poetry and criticism.' But it cannot be said that the narrative portion of the book, detached and fragmentary as it is, really fulfils this introductory purpose, or relieves the student from the task of reconstructing, from this and other sources, the gradual development of Coleridge's opinions to the point which they had now attained. Indeed, as Coleridge admits, the very narrative itself was made to serve three distinct ends, each of which was an obstacle to the fulfilment of the other two.

But enough has been said of the miscellaneous character of the Biographia Literaria. It remains to consider what definite contribution to Coleridge's theory of the imagination it actually contains. Unfortunately, it is not easy in a work of this kind, to distinguish the record of opinions arrived at in the past from the statement of those now first clearly adopted. Indeed, our knowledge of Coleridge's earlier views is partly based upon this very book, although happily we have other sources of corroboration. The development of these views may here be briefly recapitulated.

In tracing the origin of the theory in Coleridge's mind, we saw how his early doubts as to the validity of the mechanical explanation of knowledge, if they did not originate in, were yet confirmed by, the testimony of the imagination in its poetic function. Its power to reveal a new aspect of things, and compel our faith in its revelation, naturally suggested a new attitude to the problem of knowledge. For although on the one hand the mind in its poetic interpretation of outward forms is limited and determined by the nature of those forms, yet it is equally free and creative in respect of them, in so far as it invests them with a being and a life which as mere objects of the senses they do not possess. Moreover, the basis of this activity being the desire for self-expression (not of the individual merely, but of the universal self), the fitness of the external world to be the vehicle of such expression pointed to its participation in a common reality with the self which it reflected. But the fact that the imagination is a restricted gift rendered it impossible to regard it as universally active in the process of knowledge.

At this point Coleridge became acquainted with Kant's works and found in his account of the mind a definite place assigned to the imagination as an indispensable factor in the attainment of knowledge. For since the understanding, as a purely intellectual faculty, was incapable of reaching the manifold of sense, it was necessary to call in the services of the imagination, which in virtue of its twofold nature presents that manifold in a form suitable for its subsumption under the categories. The imagination as thus operative is not a mere faculty of images: still less is it the faculty of poetic invention: its peculiar characteristic lies in the power of figurative synthesis, or of delineating the forms of things in general. Moreover, in performing this function it is subject to the laws of the understanding its procedure, therefore, contributes nothing to our

knowledge of the origin of phenomena. But for this very reason of its conformity to the understanding, its deliverances are objective, that is, valid for all thinking beings: and are in this respect to be distinguished from the creations of its reproductive activity, which as subject to empirical conditions (the laws of association) have merely individual and contingent validity. Finally, in the aesthetic judgement, the imagination, though still receiving its law from the understanding, is yet so far free, that its activity is determined not by the necessity of a particular cognition, but by its own character as an organ of knowledge in general.

Kant thus distinguishes three functions or activities of the imagination: as reproductive, in which it is subject to empirical conditions; as productive, in which it acts spontaneously and determines phenomena instead of being determined by them, but yet in accordance with a law of the understanding; and as aesthetic, when it attains its highest degree of freedom in respect of the object, which it regards as material for a possible, not an actual and impending, act of cognition.

For the first and last of these functions Coleridge had already found a name and a description. To Kant's reproductive imagination corresponds the fancy. To the imagination as poetic Coleridge assigns, as we have seen, a far greater dignity and significance than Kant could possibly allow it. For in Kant's view even the highest activity of the imagination (its symbolical interpretation of beauty) has no warranty in the supersensuous ground of things. Meanwhile the second of these three functions, to Kant by far the most important (as a universal factor in knowledge), presented Coleridge with fresh matter for reflection. Here, too, it was impossible for him to stop short with Kant. That insight into reality which characterized the imagination in its highest potency must also