Here we have, indeed, the culminating expression of the anarchy of revolt, and nothing could illustrate better the wide difference between the principles of English and German romanticism than a comparison of Coleridge's attitude with that of Schlegel. If, indeed, we would seek a true parallel to Coleridge among German contemporaries, we must seek it neither in the Schlegels, nor Fichte, nor yet in Schelling, but rather in the poet Schiller.1 The conviction around which Schiller's aesthetic theories centred, and which brought him into antagonism with the doctrinaire of the romantic school, is the same which (as we saw) lay nearest also to Coleridge's heart: the conviction that 'no kind of imagination can be called truly artistic, save such as proceeds according to objective and universally valid laws'. And Coleridge's teacher had been Schiller's also. On Kantean foundations they had builded, each after his own fashion; and if, in completeness and consistency, Coleridge's achievement cannot compare with that of Schiller's, yet, viewed in relation to the public which he addressed, it is, perhaps, of even greater significance. Not, indeed, that its significance is historical merely. Coleridge's message is not one which any age is likely to find irrelevant or superfluous: and the critic or artist who runs counter to its spirit will do so at his own peril.

Idly talk they who speak of poets as indulgers of fancy, imagination, superstition, &c. They are the bridlers by delight, the purifiers; they that combine all these with reason and order -the true protoplasts-Gods of Love who tame the chaos.'

Coleridge had no doubt made some acquaintance with Schiller's principal aesthetical works; but I cannot discover evidence of a real familiarity with the leading ideas of Schiller's aesthetic.

XC

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE ON THE GENESIS BIOGRAPHIA

AND PURPOSE OF THE

LITERARIA

THE genesis of the Biographia Literaria is a matter of some obscurity, but the following facts may help to illuminate it. In March, 1815, Coleridge wrote to Cottle1 that he had 'collected his scattered and manuscript poems, sufficient to make one volume'. He spoke nothing, however, of a preface. But in May of the same year, in a letter to Wordsworth, he remarks incidentally, ‘I have only to finish a preface, which I shall have done in two, or at farthest three days.' What the contents of this preface may have been (whether critical, or autobiographical, or both) cannot be determined; but in it lay the germ of the Biographia.

This is the first stage. Two months later, we find Coleridge writing to Dr. Brabant that he has been kept to his study by the necessity of enlarging what originally was intended 'as a preface to an "Autobiographia Literaria, Sketches of my Literary Life and Opinions", so far as poetry and poetical criticisms are concerned.' From this it appears that the original preface was either conceived as a literary autobiography, or very soon took that form : and that this biography itself came to demand a preface. In extending this preface Coleridge's object was to include a full account (raisonné) of the controversy concerning Wordsworth's poems and theory', and some part at least of 'a disquisition on the powers of association . . . and on the generic difference between the Fancy and the Imagination'. But the preface, thus augmented, proved too long to serve as a preface, and had to be incorporated 1 Cottle, Rem., p. 387. 2 See Westm. Review, Apr. 1870.

in the whole work. In August, 1815, the first instalment of manuscript was sent to the printers (Messrs. John Evans and Co., of Bristol), who had agreed to publish one volume of autobiographical matter, and one of poetry. But while the printing was in progress, Coleridge, misled, as he says, by his printer's assurances, continued to write and write until he had prepared more matter than a single volume could hold.1

2

In October he tells Stuart that he has sent the manuscript of the Life and the poems to the printer, and is turning to other tasks. But no final arrangement as to the form of publication was reached until April of the next year (1816), when it was agreed to publish the work in three volumes, the Biographia to make two. Soon afterwards, however, a dispute arose between Coleridge and his printers, which lasted for many months, and eventually resulted in his transferring the whole of the printed matter to Messrs. Gale and Fenner, of London. Meantime fresh causes of delay arose. The second volume was not yet long enough, and its completion was interrupted by differences with the new publishers. On September 22, 1816, Coleridge writes, "I will commence next week with the matter which I have been forced by the blunder and false assurance of the printer to add to the literary Life, in order to render the volumes of something like the same size.' This fresh matter (which is contained in Vol. II, Chapter xxii) consisted of an appreciation of Wordsworth's poetry, which was thus severed by more than a year from the chapters dealing with the theory of poetic diction. As the second

1See the Life, p. 212, footnote. Mr. Dykes Campbell bases his conclusions on some unprinted letters which I have not seen. 2 Life, p. 223.

3 lb., p. 227. The actual transfer did not take place till May, 1817, but the negotiations with the London publishers were already going on in the summer of 1816. See Lippincott's Mag., June, 1874 (Some Unpublished Letters of S. T. Coleridge').

volume was still too small, it was at first proposed to 'fill the gap' with the newly-finished Zapolya: but finally the German letters were chosen, 'as in every respect more appropriate." To these were added the 'Critique on Bertram', which had already appeared in five numbers of the Courier (Aug. 29 and Sept. 7, 9, 10, and 11, 1816); a concluding chapter was appended, a few introductory pages prefixed; and thus, in the late summer of 1817,' the Biographia Literaria finally struggled into life.

The circumstances of its production are thus sufficient to explain why the Biographia Literaria should be the 'immethodical miscellany' which Coleridge himself styles it. Further, we must remember that at the time of its composition Coleridge's health and spirits had sunk to their lowest ebb. Even if there was any definite project in his mind, he was hardly in a fit state to carry it out. Yet among the various motives and states of mind' which are expressed in the miscellaneous character of the book one motive was, I believe, especially predominant-the desire, on Coleridge's part, to state clearly, and defend adequately, his own poetic creed. This purpose is more or less evident throughout the work, and to this it owes what unity it can be said to possess. It is with this end in view that, in the autobiographical portion of the book, he describes the growth of his own literary convictions; that, in the philosophical, he seeks to refer them to first principles; and that, in the criticism of Wordsworth's poetry and poetic theory, he emphasizes the differences which, as he imagines, exist between Wordsworth and himself. Regarded in this light, even Satyrane's letters and the 'Critique on Bertram' are not wholly out of place; for they illustrate the continuity of his opinions.

1 Lippincott's Mag., ib.

2 The actual month was July, not March, as Mr. Dykes Campbell, by an unusual oversight, states.

This desire on Coleridge's part was both just and natural. More than fifteen years had elapsed since Wordsworth had expounded his theory of poetry. The views then made public were in great measure the fruit of long and frequent discussions with Coleridge; but, as they stand in the Preface, they by no means wholly coincided with Coleridge's own opinions. When the second edition of the Lyrical Ballads appeared in 1802, Coleridge felt it necessary to remove the current impression that the language of the Preface represented his own standpoint as well as Wordsworth's. This purpose he effected privately, in letters written to his friends'; and publicly he proposed to effect it also, by stating at large, in a volume of selections from contemporary poets, his views on the true nature of poetry. Of this project he writes to Southey in 1802, 'Of course, Darwin and Wordsworth having given each a defence of their mode of poetry, and a disquisition on the nature and essence of poetry in general, I shall necessarily be led rather deeper.' But the project came to nothing, and Coleridge remained content, for fourteen years, to circulate his views in private, or at best through the medium of lectures. Meanwhile, however, the need for their expression had not decreased, but had grown tenfold more imperative. For not only had critics and public continued to include Coleridge, as a matter of course, in their estimate of Wordsworth's poetry and theories, but Wordsworth's own meaning had been grossly misunderstcod, and often enough as wilfully misinterpreted. 'This slang' (of affected simplicity and meanness of thought and diction) 'has gone on for fourteen or fifteen years against us,' writes Coleridge in 1813, 'and really deserves to be exposed." And he felt no doubt that all things pointed to him as the right person to undertake the task. Yet

2