Coleridge and the crisis of reason

Coleridge and the Crisis of Reason Richard Berkeley Coleridge and the Crisis of Reason This page intentionally left blank Coleridge and the Crisis of Reason Richard Berkeley © Richard Berkeley 2007 All rights reserved No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 First published 2007 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd Macmillan is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries ISBN-13: 978 230 52164 hardback ISBN-10: 230 52164 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Berkeley, Richard, 1971 Coleridge and the crisis of reason/Richard Berkeley p cm Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN-13: 978 230 52164 ISBN-10: 230 52164 (cloth) Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772 1834“Philosophy Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772 1834“Knowledge“Pantheism Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772 1834“Knowledge“Philosophy, German Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772 1834“Religion Pantheism in literature Pantheism I Title B1583.Z7 B47 [PR4487.P5] 2007060024 821 7“dc22 10 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne Vergieb mir d ich so gerne schweige wenn von einem gưttlichen Wesen die Rede ist, das ich nur in und aus den rebus singularibus erkenne, zu deren nähern und tiefern Betrachtung niemand mehr aufmuntern kann als Spinoza selbst, obgleich vor seinem Blicke alle einzelne Dinge zu verschwinden scheinen – Goethe an Jacobi, June 1785 Wie die Sonne am Firmament alle Himmelslichter auslöscht, so und noch viel mehr die unendliche Macht jede endliche – Schelling SW VII 339 For a very long time I could not reconcile personality with infinity; and my head was with Spinoza, though my whole heart remained with Paul and John – Coleridge BL I 201 This page intentionally left blank Contents Acknowledgements x List of Abbreviations xi Note on Quotations from MSS xii Introduction A critique of McFarland’s Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition Understanding understanding: An hermeneutic approach to ‘influence’ Part I Coleridge and Spinoza Silence and the Pantheistic Sublime in Coleridge’s Early Poetry 15 Spinoza and the Problem of the Infinite Infinity God Freedom Evil 24 26 32 34 35 The Providential Wreck: Coleridge and Spinoza’s Metaphysics Coleridge’s understanding of Spinoza Coleridge’s critique of Spinoza’s metaphysics Coleridge and Spinoza: A providential reading Part II 38 39 47 55 Coleridge and the Pantheism Controversy Understanding the Pantheism Controversy Lessing’s Spinozism Jacobi and his salto mortale vii 59 60 63 viii Contents Mendelssohn and Morgenstunden Kant Schelling and the defence of pantheism Reading under a Warp: Coleridge and Jacobi’s Transformations of ‘Reason’ Jacobi’s uses of ‘reason’ The note on Maass Coleridge’s understanding of Jacobi’s rhetorical stance Coleridge’s critique of Jacobi on Spinoza Jacobi’s immediate knowledge argument Coleridge, Mendelssohn and the Defence of Reason Mendelssohn on Spinoza Mendelssohn’s proof of God’s existence Truth and Orientierung Coleridge and Schelling: The Seductions of Ideal Pantheism Schelling’s ‘Plotinised Spinozism’ Schelling contra Jacobi Ungrund and Indifferenz: Schelling’s speculative ontology Freedom Coleridge’s critique of Schelling’s theodicy 64 65 66 68 69 71 73 76 82 90 91 97 103 108 109 114 118 126 132 Part III The Pantheism Controversy in Coleridge’s Later Thought The Anxiety of Pantheism: Hidden Dimensions of Coleridge’s Transcendental Deduction Coleridge’s transcendental deduction The ‘interrupting’ ‘friend’ Coleridge’s Trinity: The Defence of Immanence Trinity and Coleridge and Schelling: Eternity, evil and evolutionary divinity 145 147 159 165 167 179 Contents 10 Reason, Understanding and Truth Reason and understanding: The rhetoric of distinction Truth ix 187 188 199 Notes 211 Bibliography 223 Index 229 Notes 217 The connection between the poem and Spinozism was discussed in contemporary reviews, but has never been completely clear Di Giovanni suggests that Jacobi personally associated it with Spinoza because of his friendship with Goethe and simply because it implies an impersonal Deity However, if Jacobi’s story is to be believed, Lessing immediately saw Spinozism in it as well, so the emphasis on fate and the devaluation of the divine may be more important Jacobi The Main Philosophical Writings and the Novel Allwill 67–9 See Beck 352–60; Allison 72–5; Cassirer 190–1 Hume A Treatise of Human Nature 240; Bayle 288–338 For discussion of the anti-Spinozistic background, see Beiser The Fate of Reason 48–61; McFarland Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition 72–7, 261–6; Moreau 408–13 Bayle 288–338 CL I 454–5; See Holmes 216, 288–9; Ashton The Life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge 146, 149, 156, 168 Bayle 288–338 10 Jacobi also argues Leibniz was effectively a Spinozist ULS 31–40 [63–70] 11 For discussion, see Beiser The Fate of Reason 113–18 12 Kant VIII 133–4 13 Wizenmann also criticized Kant, arguing that his position too relies on an anti-rational element, namely the postulation of truths such as the existence of God as the conditions of practical reason Kant responded to this in Kritik der praktischen Vernunft Kant V 143n See Beiser The Fate of Reason 109–113, 118–22; Beck 372–4 14 Kant VIII 133–4 15 Ibid 149–56 Reading under a warp: Coleridge and Jacobi’s transformations of ‘Reason’ Jacobi David Hume über den Glauben v Jacobi Werke II 3–10 Schelling heaped scorn on it, commenting that Jacobi did it ‘as though to destroy thereby, every vestige of his earlier, better aspirations’ (SW X 173) Schrickx’s argument is based on Coleridge’s inclusion in a letter of a passage from Pascal which he appears to have quoted indirectly from David Hume über den Glauben, where it is printed as the epigraph (CL I 478–9; Jacobi Werke II 1) The passage is also quoted in Über die Lehre des Spinoza, but is not so prominent (ULS 237 [230]) and Coleridge’s letter argues that faith is necessary when reason fails, which Schrickx takes as reminiscent of David Hume über den Glauben Schrickx 818–19 For a similar account, see McFarland Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition 131–3, 296–7 As Beiser suggests; Beiser The Fate of Reason 90 The date of this marginalia is clearly around the time of the writing of Biographia, since one of the marginal notes is expanded and incorporated into Chapter of Biographia CM III 792n5–1; BL I 111 Coleridge’s annotations of Schelling’s Über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit are frequent, but he hardly plagiarizes from it; whereas his notes on 218 Notes System des transscendentalen Idealismus are sparse, but he plagiarizes from it heavily Mendelssohn Philosophical Writings 96–111 See Leibniz 150–1 10 CM III 91n21–4 This word is Coleridge’s coinage; the editors of the marginalia supply this translation Coleridge, Mendelssohn and the defence of reason Burwick considers Mendelssohn but concludes his impact on Coleridge was minimal, where I argue for its ongoing importance for his later thought Burwick ‘Mendelssohn and Coleridge on words, Thoughts, and Things’ Kant VIII 131–48, 149–56 As Modiano points out, this note refers to the previous one, where Mendelssohn makes the accusation that Spinoza ‘streitet er bloß in Worten’ Modiano ‘Coleridge’s Marginalia’ 260–1 Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion VII 90–1 For discussion, see Hedley 198–201 Coleridge made similar claims about a number of authors he plagiarized from; BL I 160–4; CN II 2375 and so on Coleridge plagiarized Jacobi’s Biblical versification and indirectly quotes a Kant passage from Jacobi (BL I 201n2, 202) Descartes 44–9 BL I 281 Also 273 where self-consciousness is described as that in which ‘object and subject, being and knowing, are identical’ 10 Kant VIII 133–5 11 Ibid 152–3 12 Ibid 153 Coleridge and Schelling: The seductions of ideal pantheism SW&F I 622 Also CL IV 883 where he describes Schelling as a ‘zealous Roman-Catholic’ Schelling Denkmal der Schrift von den göttlichen Dingen 1–3 See his comment ‘Schelling an{d} Fichte impose upon themselves the Schem{e} of an expanding Surface and call i{t} Freedom The above I wrote a year ago; but the more I reflect, the more {am} I convinced of the gross materialism, {which lies under the whole system}’ (CM IV 412) ‘Spinozism is the only consequent dogmatism’ (SW III 356) CM IV 424, 427, 432, 434, 443; CL IV 883 See CM IV 441–2 Note though that CM prints this as two separate notes, with some text missing The MS is badly cropped so I have relied on Sara Coleridge’s publication of the note to supply the missing text in [] (I not know whether she had the MS in better condition) Also, the published text reads ‘{exp}ected’ where Sara reads ‘effected’, and I prefer Sara’s reading since it makes better sense Coleridge Biographia Literaria ed HN Coleridge, S Coleridge 308 Notes 219 The anxiety of pantheism: Hidden dimensions of Coleridge’s transcendental deduction Schelling takes up the ‘chain of knowledge’ idea in Vom Ich making the same claim—that it leads to an unconditional basis (SW VII 163–5) There are numerous uses of the image, for example TT I 86–7, 265; CM III 853; CM IV 408 and SW&F 399 He makes a similar point in Vom Ich (SW VII 166–7) Thus Coleridge’s famous assertion, ‘Did philosophy commence with an it is, instead of an I am, Spinoza would be altogether true’, is a distinctively Coleridgean twist on a Schellingian criticism Crabb Robinson I 400 (Entry for October 1812, dated November in some editions) Ferris argues that this represents a ‘radical misunderstanding of the nature and function of systematic development in Transcendental Philosophy’ (Ferris 57) Reid on the other hand argues more generally that Coleridge was rejecting Schelling’s systematic development, because of the resulting status of the will and meta-logical considerations (see Reid ‘Coleridge and Schelling: The Missing Transcendental Deduction’) Both of these accounts, assiduous as they are, are marked by their replication of the categories that govern System des transscendentalen Idealismus, and neither of them considers the broader context, or even the fact that Coleridge was simultaneously dealing with several other Schellingian texts They are therefore limited to the assumption that any deviation away from System des transscendentalen Idealismus must be explained by some detail of Coleridge’s interaction with this same text Most importantly neither account is able to explain why Coleridge is destabilizing, rather than redirecting, his own argument with this conceptual smudging Ferris 54–7 There are many examples: ‘ not that which Spinosism, i.e the doctrine of the Immanence of the World in God, might be improved into, but Spinosism with all it’s Skeleton unfleshed, bare Bones and Eye-holes, as presented by Spinoza himself’ (CL IV 548) ‘Spinoza’s is the only true philosophy; but it is the Skeleton of the Truth, to scare & disgust—and an imperfect Skeleton, moreover’ (marginal note on The Friend; see Wordsworth 369) Also see CM III 123; OM III 266 and SW&F 623 Barbeau observes the crucial similarity of Schelling’s and Coleridge’s use of will, but does not recognize that this is compelled by their similar concerns about Jacobi Barbeau 586–7 As the editors note (BL I 185n) 10 See CL IV 728; BL I 300n3 11 CL II 1178 Repeated at BL I 17 12 Jacobi David Hume über den Glauben 62 13 Hamilton’s account is the only one that succeeds in putting aside the Schellingian surface texture of Coleridge’s text—the other two seem unwilling to surrender the elements they are identifying as ‘systematic’ and ‘transcendental’ Hamilton 7–12, 79–81; Ferris 41–84; Reid ‘Coleridge and Schelling: The Missing Transcendental Deduction’ 451–79 14 Engell notes that Coleridge later felt that his thought about the imagination ‘had betrayed him into a mistaken pantheistic attitude’ He goes on to argue 220 15 16 17 18 Notes that Coleridge’s later comments on pantheism and Schelling are in part a result of this feeling Engell The Creative Imagination 162–3 McFarland Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition 151–60 Ibid 159 McFarland ‘The Origin and Significance of Coleridge’s Theory of Secondary Imagination’ 199 Burwick points out that even in considering only Coleridge’s use of Schelling there is a problem since Coleridge is drawing on several texts, any one of which could have supplied a complete argument This sets the problem of understanding what is driving his refusal to fully adopt any of these versions Burwick ‘Perception and the “Heaven-descended KNOW-THYSELF”.’ 127–8 Coleridge’s Trinity: The defence of immanence See CL IV 883: ‘But as a System, it is little more than Behmenism, translated from visions into Logic and a sort of commanding eloquence: and like Behmen’s it is reduced at last to a mere Pantheism.’ McFarland Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition 191–255 Ibid 107–13, 191–6 Reid sees Coleridge’s final disagreement with Schelling as a preference for a ‘Trinitarian logic’ over a ‘pantheistic’ one The assumption seems to be that Coleridge’s stance is defensible if it can be shown to have a secular rather than religious motivation Reid ‘Coleridge and Schelling: The Missing Transcendental Deduction’ As Modiano points out (Coleridge and the Concept of Nature 188ff) See also Barth 85–104; Ford 20–4 Modiano Coleridge and the Concept of Nature 189 Hamilton suggests that the scholarly focus on Coleridge’s antipathy to pantheism has obscured the abiding importance of Schelling for Coleridge’s later religious thought Hamilton 189 Modiano Coleridge and the Concept of Nature 189–92, 194–5 Wellek 134–5; Bate 213–14 This occurs frequently, for example, CN III 4427–9, 4436; OM II 191—283; annotations of Böhme (CM I 561–5, 646–7, 679); Johnson (CM III 151); Irving (CM III 15–18); Diaz (CM III 453); Oken (CM III 1051, 1055) 10 CM III 1055 See Modiano Coleridge and the Concept of Nature 189, 250n91, n92 11 CN III 4424 Editorial glosses substituted 12 He repeats the point in a letter to Green, where he criticizes Schelling and Zoroaster: ‘This however the Zoroastrian & Schellingian Oracles have in common—that Polarity is asserted of the Absolute, of the Monad’ (CL IV 874) 13 The potential element is a common point of objection Reid though rightly concludes that Coleridge’s conception does not involve any unrealized potential Coleridge The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge I 44 Barth 94–5; Bate 217; Boulger 133–5; Reid ‘The Satanic Principle in the Later Coleridge’s Theory of Imagination’ 263–5, 273 14 Coleridge frequently insists on God’s a-temporal nature, for example, ‘All the difficulties & heretical Attacks on God derive all their apparent Notes 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 221 self-evidence from taking God, i.e a Spirit, as a Thing—the subject of the Categories affirming of the falsely tho’ unavoidably imagined Intervals of Time & Space ’(CN III 3575) Modiano notes this, but concludes it has little impact Modiano Coleridge and the Concept of Nature 193 The Notebook editors describe it as a ‘paraphrase into Schelling’s vocabulary’ CN IIIn 4428 Bayle 288–338 Ford problematically claims that Coleridge uses ‘perichoresis’, ‘intercirculation’, ‘interpenetration’ and ‘co-inherence’ synonymously For Coleridge ‘intercirculation’ refers to God’s act; ‘interpenetration’ to the relationship between the products of that act (the figures of the Trinity); and ‘coinherence’ is not applied to the Trinity at all since it implies a lack of distinctness Ford 22 See Coleridge’s ‘On the Trinity’, where these technical aspects are almost completely absent SW&F II 1510–12 See Barth 93–6 Given its importance this account of evil has received surprisingly little attention Reid considers similar accounts in the later notebooks, but does not make the connection to pantheism or Schelling Harding briefly discusses this material, and even suggests a connection between Coleridge and Schelling on evil However, he does not explore the reasons for this, because he is more interested in the role of the imagination Barbeau does draw a more direct connection between Coleridge and Schelling on evil, and even manages to suggest that Coleridge was resisting aspects of Schelling’s ontology, but goes astray in suggesting that for Schelling evil ‘is found in the Absolute’ McLean discusses the neo-platonic background that was informing Coleridge’s account of evil, but it seems more interesting to ask how the neo-platonic background was setting the concepts through which Coleridge in turn understands Schelling Reid ‘The Satanic Principle in the Later Coleridge’s Theory of Imagination’ 265–73 Harding 9–13; Barbeau 587; McLean 93–104 Coleridge The Philosophical Lectures of Samuel Taylor Coleridge 433n17 One of his repeated criticisms of Schelling, who he says ‘commences by giving objectivity to Abstractions’ (CM IV 450) Reason, understanding and truth See Friend I 155; AR 215, 232 For example, see Wellek 134–5 McFarland ‘Aspects of Coleridge’s Distinction Between Reason and Understanding’ 169 Friend I 154 For the quote, see Harrington 766 Jacobi Werke II Boulger 72 Barfield discusses the understanding in depth, but I see it as a negative conception designed to protect the reason from anything that would interfere with its ontological functions Barfield 92–103 222 Notes McFarland and Wellek, despite their opposed views, share this basic assumption Engell on the other hand emphasizes (as I do) that the three faculties are not completely separate or opposed See Engell The Creative Imagination 335–8 Wellek 135 10 McFarland ‘Aspects of Coleridge’s Distinction Between Reason and Understanding’ 177–80; Boulger 77–9; Perkins 142–5; Wellek 103; Orsini 142–3; Lovejoy 15 Hedley on the other hand insists on the difference between Coleridge’s account of reason and Jacobi’s, on the grounds that Coleridge sees reason as somehow immanent whereas Jacobi locates God as a ‘quasi spatially transcendent object outside the world’ With regard to Jacobi’s account of God this seems problematic, but the structural difference between Coleridge and Jacobi on reason is crucial Hedley 221–2 11 Kant VIII 131–48 12 Wellek 133–5 13 Ibid 134 14 The Logic was only published in the twentieth century, so the term ‘plagiarism’ assumes a presentation of material as his own that he never made Thus Snyder argues he may not have intended to plagiarize (Snyder ‘Coleridge’s Reading of Mendelssohn’s “Morgenstunden” and “Jerusalem” ’ 505n6) 15 KRV 82–3 The Logic editors note this Logic 107n3 16 Coleridge frequently does this, as where he alters Schelling’s use of Terra del Fuego to New Zealand (see BL I 251) Fruman also notes this tendency to anglicize German materials Fruman ‘Quizzing the World by Lyes’ 15 17 Mendelssohn was a defender of the rationalistic philosophy Kant was attacking Thus Kant specifically attacks Mendelssohn’s arguments for the immortality of the soul (KRV 413–26), and the ontological argument for God’s existence, a version of which Mendelssohn used (KRV 620–30) 18 BL I 255–8 plagiarized from SW III 335–43 19 MW III/2 166–73 [XIX–XXXVII] 20 The Logic editors failed to locate this quote in Augustine Logic 112n1 21 Logic 112–20 The editorial notes point to Morgenstunden 22 Logic 120 Matt 4.4 ‘But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’ Jesus’ answer to Satan’s temptation 23 Kant VIII 152 This plagiarism has not been previously noted Indeed, Snyder uses this very passage to argue for the independence of Coleridge’s position Snyder ‘Coleridge’s Reading of Mendelssohn’s “Morgenstunden” and “Jerusalem” ’ 505–9 24 Logic 121 Cf Kant VIII 152–3 25 Kant VIII 153 26 Bayle 288–338 27 Logic 126–7 Cf Kant VIII 153; MW III/2 60 [116] 28 Hamilton 64–5 29 Wellek 134–5 Bibliography Abrams, M.H ‘Coleridge’s “A Light in Sound”: Science, Metascience, and Poetic Imagination.’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 116 (1972) 458–76 —— Natural Supernaturalism (New York: Norton, 1973) Allison, H Lessing and the Enlightenment (Ann Arbour: Michigan UP, 1966) Altmann, A Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (London: Routledge, 1973) Ashton, R The German Idea: Four English Writers and the Reception of German Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980) —— The Life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Oxford: Blackwells, 1996) Barbeau, J ‘The Development of Coleridge’s Notion of Human Freedom: The Translation and Re-formation of German Idealism in England.’ Journal of Religion 80 (2000) 576–94 Barfield, O What Coleridge Thought (Middleton, CO: Wesleyan UP, 1971) Barth, J Coleridge and Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1969) Bate, W Coleridge (New York: Macmillan, 1968) Bayle, P Historical and Critical Dictionary trans R Popkin and C Brush (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965) Beck, L Early German Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1969) Beiser, F The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1987) —— German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjectivism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2002) Bennett, J A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1984) Berkeley, R ‘Silence and the Pantheistic Sublime in Coleridge’s Early Poetry.’ Coleridge Bulletin NS 24 (Winter 2004) 59–67 —— ‘The Anxiety of Pantheism: Hidden Dimensions of Coleridge’s Transcendental Deduction.’ Prism(s): Essays in Romanticism 13 (2005) 1–25 —— ‘The Providential Wreck: Coleridge and Spinoza’s Metaphysics.’ European Romantic Review 17:4 (2006) 457–75 Blair, H Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres (London, 1783; Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1965) Bloom, H The Anxiety of Influence (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997) —— ‘Coleridge: The Anxiety of Influence.’ New Perspectives on Coleridge and Wordsworth ed G Hartman (New York: Columbia UP, 1972) 247–72 Boulger, J Coleridge as Religious Thinker (New Haven: Yale UP, 1961) Brinkley, R ‘Some Unpublished Coleridge Marginalia: Richter and Reimarus.’ Journal of English and German Philology 44 (1945) 113–30 Bruno, G Cause, Principle and Unity and Essays on Magic trans R de Lucca, R Blackwell and A Ingegno (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998) Burke, E A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (London, 1759; Menston: Scolar Press, 1970) 223 224 Bibliography Burwick, F ‘Mendelssohn and Coleridge on words, Thoughts, and Things.’ The Jews and British Romanticism ed S Spector (New York: Palgrave, 2005) 245–73 —— ‘Perception and the “Heaven-descended KNOW-THYSELF”.’ Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria: Text and Meaning ed F Burwick (Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1989) 127–37 Cassirer, E The Philosophy of the Enlightenment trans F Koelln and J Pettegrove (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1951) Cheshire, P ‘The Eolian Harp.’ The Coleridge Bulletin NS 17 (Summer 2001) 1–26 Christie, W ‘The Act of Love in Coleridge’s Conversation Poems.’ Sydney Studies in English (1981) 12–31 Coleridge, S.T Biographia Literaria eds H.N Coleridge and S Coleridge (London: 1847) —— Collected Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge ed E.L Griggs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956–71) —— The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge ed K Coburn (London: Routledge, 1971–2002) —— The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge ed WGT Shedd (New York: Harper, 1884–) —— Egerton MS 2801 © The British Library All Rights Reserved —— MS annotations on Spinoza Benedicti de Spinoza opera quae supersunt omnia ed G.E Paulus (Jena: Academico, 1802) Harris Manchester College Library, Oxford —— The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge ed K Coburn (New York: Pantheon, 1957–) —— ‘Opus Maximum MS.’ Victoria College Library, University of Toronto VCL S MS 29 —— The Philosophical Lectures of Samuel Taylor Coleridge ed K Coburn (London: Pilot, 1949) —— Poems ed J Beer (London: Dent, 1963) —— ‘Rugby MS.’ Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin © Priscilla Cassam Colerus, J ‘The Life of Benedict de Spinoza.’ Spinoza: His Life and Philosophy trans F Pollock (New York: American Scholar, 1966) 385–418 Colie, R ‘Spinoza and the Early English Deists.’ Journal of the History of Ideas 20 (1959) 23–46 Crabb Robinson, H Diary, Reminiscences, and Correspondence ed T Sadler (London: Macmillan, 1869) Curley, E.M Spinoza’s Metaphysics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1969) De Quincey, T The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey ed D Masson (London, 1889–90) —— De Quincey’s Works (Edinburgh, 1863) Deleuze, G Spinoza: Practical Philosophy trans R Hurley (San Francisco: City Lights, 1988) Descartes, R Meditations on First Philosophy trans J Cottingham, ed B Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986) di Giovanni, G ‘The First Twenty Years of Critique.’ Cambridge Companion to Kant ed P Guyer (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992) 417–41 —— ‘From Jacobi’s Philosophical novel to Fichte’s Idealism: Some Comments on the 1798–99 “Atheism Dispute”.’ Journal of the History of Philosophy XXVII (1989) 75–100 Bibliography 225 —— Freedom and Religion in Kant and His Immediate Successors (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005) Dombrowski, D ‘McFarland, Pantheism and Panentheism.’ History of European Ideas 9:5 (1988) 569–82 Engell, J The Creative Imagination: Enlightenment to Romanticism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1981) —— Forming the Critical Mind: Dryden to Coleridge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1989) —— ‘Coleridge and German Idealism: First Postulates, Final Causes.’ The Coleridge Connection: Essays for Thomas McFarland eds R Gravil and M Lefebure (London: Macmillan, 1990) 153–77 —— ‘Imagining into Nature: This Lime-Tree Bower My Prison.’ Coleridge, Keats, and the Imagination: Romanticism and Adam’s Dream eds R Barth and J Mahoney (Columbia: Missouri UP, 1990) 81–96 Everest, K Coleridge’s Secret Ministry (Sussex: Harvester, 1979) Ferris, D ‘Coleridge’s Ventriloquy: The Abduction from the Biographia.’ Studies in Romanticism 24:1 (1985) 41–84 Ford, S.H ‘Perichoresis and Interpenetration: Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Trinitarian Conception of Unity.’ Theology 89 (1986) 20–4 Frank, M The Philosophical Foundations of Early German Romanticism trans E Millán-Zaibert (Albany: SUNY, 2004) Fruman, N Coleridge, the Damaged Archangel (New York: Braziller, 1971) —— ‘Quizzing the World by Lyes.’ TLS (30 April 1999) 14–15 —— ‘Review Essay: Aids to Reflection on the New Biographia.’ Studies in Romanticism 24:1 (1985) 141–73 Gadamer, H.G ‘On the Circle of Understanding.’ Hermeneutics Versus Science? eds J Connolly and T Keutner (Notre Dame: Notre Dame UP, 1988) 68–78 —— Philosophical Hermeneutics trans D Linge (Berkeley: U of California P, 1976) —— Truth and Method trans J Weinsheimer and D Marshell (London: Sheed and Ward, 1989) Gérard, A ‘Counterfeiting Infinity: The Eolian Harp and the Growth of Coleridge’s Mind.’ Journal of English and German Philology 60 (1961) 411–22 Goethe, J.W Gedenkausgabe der Werke, Briefe und Gespräche ed E Beutler (Zürich: Artemis, 1949) Hallett, H Benedict de Spinoza: The Elements of His Philosophy (London: Athlone, 1957) Hamilton, P Coleridge’s Poetics (Oxford: Blackwells, 1983) Hampshire, S ‘Spinoza’s Theory of Human Freedom.’ Monist 55 (1971) 554–66 Harding, A ‘Imagination, Patriarchy, and Evil in Coleridge and Heidegger.’ Studies in Romanticism 35:1 (1996) 3–26 Harman, B ‘Herbert, Coleridge and the Vexed Work of Narration.’ MLN 93 (1978) 888–911 Harrington, J The Political Works of James Harrington ed J Pocock (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1977) Haserot, F ‘Spinoza’s Definition of Attribute.’ Studies in Spinoza: Critical and Interpretive Essays ed P Kashap (Berkeley: California UP, 1972) 28–42 Hedley, D Coleridge, Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000) Hegel, G.W.F Sämtliche Werke (Stuttgart: Frommans, 1959) —— Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie eds E Moldenhauer and K Michel (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1986) 226 Bibliography Heidegger, M Sein und Zeit (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1972) Henrich, D Between Kant and Hegel: Lectures on German Idealism ed D Pacini (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2003) Holmes, R Coleridge: Early Visions (London: Penguin, 1989) House, H Coleridge: The Clark Lectures (London: Hart-Davis, 1962) Hume, D Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ed M Bell (London: Penguin, 1990) —— A Treatise of Human Nature eds L Selby-Bigge and P.H Nidditch (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978) Jacobi, F.H David Hume über den Glauben (Breslau: Löwe, 1787) —— The Main Philosophical Writings and the Novel Allwill trans G di Giovanni (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s, 1994) —— Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen an den Herrn Moses Mendelssohn ed M Lauschke (Hamburg: Meiner, 2000) —— Werke (Leipzig: Fleischer, 1812–25; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980) Kant, I Kants gesammelte Schriften (Berlin: Reimer, 1910–) Knight, R An Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of Taste (London, 1805) Leibniz, G.W Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil trans E.M Huggard, ed A Farrer (London: Routledge, 1951) Linsay, J ‘Coleridge Marginalia in Jacobi’s Werke.’ MLN 50:4 (1935) 216–26 Lloyd, G Spinoza and the Ethics (London: Routledge, 1996) Lovejoy, A The Reason, the Understanding, and Time (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1961) Magnuson, P ‘ “The Eolian Harp” in Context.’ Studies in Romanticism 24 (Spring 1985) 3–20 Martin, C ‘Coleridge and Cudworth: A Source for “The Eolian Harp” ’ N&Q 13 (1966) 173–6 Mason, R The God of Spinoza (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997) McFarland, T ‘Aspects of Coleridge’s Distinction between Reason and Understanding.’ Coleridge’s Visionary Languages: Essays in Honour of J.B Beer ed T Fulford (Rochester, NY: Brewer, 1993) 165–80 —— Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969) —— ‘Coleridge’s Plagiarisms Once More: A Review Essay (of Fruman’s Coleridge: The Damaged Archangel).’ Yale Review 63 (1974) 254–86 —— ‘The Origin and Significance of Coleridge’s Theory of Secondary Imagination.’ New Perspectives on Coleridge and Wordsworth ed G Hartmann (New York: Columbia UP, 1972), 195–246 McLean, K ‘Plotinian Sources for Coleridge’s Theories of Evil.’ Coleridge Bulletin NS 20 (2002) 93–104 Mendelssohn, M Gesammelte Schriften ed L Strauss (Stuttgart: Frommann, 1929) —— Philosophical Writings trans D Dahlstrom (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997) Metzger, L ‘Coleridge’s Vindication of Spinoza: An Unpublished Note.’ Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (1960) 279–93 Modiano, R Coleridge and the Concept of Nature (Tallahassee: Florida State UP, 1985) —— ‘Coleridge’s Marginalia.’ Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship (1985) 257–68 Bibliography 227 Moffat, D ‘Coleridge’s Ten Theses: The Plotinian Alternative.’ Wordsworth Circle 13:1 (1982) 27–31 Monk, S The Sublime (Ann Arbor: Michigan UP, 1960) Moreau, P ‘Spinoza’s Reception and Influence.’ Cambridge Companion to Spinoza ed D Garrett (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996) Muirhead, J Coleridge as Philosopher (London: Allen and Unwin, 1930) —— ‘Metaphysician or Mystic?’ Coleridge: Studies by Several Hands on the Hundredth Anniversary of His Death eds E Blunden and E.L Griggs (London: Constable, 1934) 179–97 Novalis Schriften (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960) Orsini, G.N.G Coleridge and German Idealism (Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1969) Parkinson, G.H.R ‘Spinoza on the Power and Freedom of Man.’ Monist 55 (1971) 527–53 Pater, W.H ‘Coleridge’s Writings.’ English Critical Essays: Nineteenth Century ed E Jones (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1971) 421–57 Perkins, M Coleridge’s Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994) Perry, S Coleridge and the Uses of Division (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) Peterfreund, S ‘The Way of Immanence, Coleridge, and the Problem of Evil.’ ELH 55:1 (1988) 125–58 Piper, H The Active Universe (London: Athlone Press, 1962) —— ‘Pantheistic Sources of Coleridge’s Early Poetry.’ Journal of the History of Ideas 20 (1959) 47–59 Priestley, J A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism (London, 1777; Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1965) —— The Theological and Miscellaneous Works &c of Joseph Priestley ed J.T Rutt (London, 1817–32; New York: Kraus Reprint Company, 1972) Prickett, S Coleridge and Wordsworth: The Poetry of Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1970) Raiger, M ‘The Intellectual Breeze, the Corporeality of Thought, and the Eolian Harp.’ The Coleridge Bulletin NS 20 (Winter 2002) 76–84 Reid, N Coleridge, Form and Symbol (Hants: Ashgate, 2006) —— ‘Coleridge and Schelling: The Missing Transcendental Deduction.’ Studies in Romanticism 33:3 (1994) 451–79 —— ‘The Satanic Principle in the Later Coleridge’s Theory of Imagination.’ Studies in Romanticism 37 (1998) 259–77 Rubenstein, J ‘Sound and Silence in Coleridge’s Conversation Poems.’ English 21 (1972) 54–60 Schelling, F.W.J Denkmal der Schrift von den göttlichen Dingen (Tübingen: Cotta, 1812) —— Sämmtliche Werke ed K.F.A Schelling (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1856–61) Schopenhauer, A ‘Einige Worte über den Pantheismus.’ Schopenhauers sämtliche Werke (Leipzig: Reclam, 1892) V 111–14 Schrickx, W ‘Coleridge and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi.’ Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire XXXVI:3 (1958) 813–50 Snyder, A ‘Coleridge on Giordano Bruno.’ MLN 42:7 (1927) 427–43 —— Coleridge on Logic and Learning (New Haven: Yale UP, 1929) —— ‘Coleridge’s Reading of Mendelssohn’s “Morgenstunden” and “Jerusalem”.’ Journal of English and German Philology 27 (1929) 503–17 228 Bibliography Spector, S ‘Coleridge’s Misreading of Spinoza.’ The Jews and British Romanticism ed S Spector (New York: Palgrave, 2005) 233–44 Spinoza, B On the Improvement of the Understanding The Ethics Correspondence trans R.H.M Elwes (New York: Dover, 1955) Usher, J Clio: Or, A Discourse on Taste (London, 1769) Wellek, R and Guiseppe, M Kant’s Thought in Britain: The Early Reception of Kant’s Thought in England 1785–1838 and Immanuel Kant in England (London: Routledge, 1993) Wendling, R ‘Coleridge and the Consistency of “The Eolian Harp” ’ Studies in Romanticism (1968) 26–42 Wheeler, K.M Sources, Processes and Methods in Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980) White, W ‘Coleridge on Spinoza.’ Athenaeum 3630 (22 May 1897) 680–1 Wienpahl, P The Radical Spinoza (New York: New York UP, 1979) Wolfson, H The Philosophy of Spinoza (New York: Meridian, 1958) Wordsworth, J ‘Some Unpublished Coleridge Marginalia.’ TLS (14 June 1957) 369 Index Abrams, M.H., 212 Adam, 36 Agamemnon, 36 anxiety of authorship, 162–3 of influence, 10 of pantheism, 114, 146, 150, 163, 209 of Spinozism, 42–4, 163, 190 over understandings of Spinoza, 6, 89 Bacon, F., 200 Barbeau, J., 219, 221 Barfield, O., 221 Baxter, R., 48 Bayle, P., 25, 62–3, 173, 206 Beck, L., 60 Beiser, F., 60, 213, 217 Bennet, J., 213–14 Berkeley, G., 19, 207–8 Bhagavad-Gita, 47–8 Bloom, H., 10, 211 Böhme, J., 111, 112, 135, 167 Boulger, J., 191 Brown, T., 196 Burwick, F., 218, 220 Cheshire, P., 212 Coleridge, S., 218 Coleridge, S.T anxiety of authorship, 162 anxiety over appearance of Spinozism, 42–3 anxiety over philosophical originality, 10 blue board, 154 bull, making a, 160 chain of blind men, 148 chains, 41–2, 148–9, 152–3, 219 Christabel, 22, 56, 73, 89, 209–10 date of first reading Jacobi, 21, 69–70, 212, 217 defences of Spinoza, 44–7, 76–82, 92 Dejection: an Ode, 158, 214 desert image, 39, 56 The Eolian Harp, 15–23, 38, 44, 52, 62, 64, 68, 113, 159, 209–10, 212, 214 evil, 22, 54–6, 132–42, 179–86, 212 ‘heart in the head’, 39 ‘It is’ vs ‘I am’, 3, 42 letter from the friend, 145, 159–60, 209–10 , 167–79 plagiarisms, 2–3, 71, 106, 147–64, 199–208, 217–18, 222 potential vs actual, 171, 175, 182–6 principle of being and knowing, 105, 156 proposed life of Lessing, 63 providential wreck, 55–6 quick-silver mines, 159 reason vs understanding, 98–100, 118, 187–99, 209 The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, 22, 56, 89, 209–10 sea, 15–17, 19, 22, 75 self conscious watch, 43, 72–3 skeletons, 41–2, 43, 115, 157, 162–3, 168, 177, 215, 219 as transcendentalist, 2, 108–9, 142, 187 truth, 199–210 warp, 43, 76, 88 will, 50, 95–6, 156–7, 174–7, 181 Colerus, J., 44–6, 215 Colie, R., 215 Deleuze, G., 25, 45 Descartes, R., 80, 100–2 di Giovanni, G., 60, 217 Engell, J., 219–20, 222 229 230 Index Ferris, D., 161, 219 Fichte, G.J., 59, 111 Ford, S.H., 221 Fruman, N., 222 Gadamer, H.G., 7–10, 211 Goethe, J.W., v, 31, 61–2, 216, 217 Grecian urn, Hallett, H., 35, 214 Hamilton, P., 161, 207, 219, 220 Hampshire, S., 35 Harding, A., 221 Harris, J., 201 Hartley, D., 19, 21 Haserot, F., 28, 214 Hedley, D., 222 Hegel, G.W.F., 24, 60 Heidegger, M., 8–9 Henrich, D., 60, 214 hermeneutic circle, 7–11, 108, 110 , 48–9, 61–3 Hume, D., 3, 24, 62, 70, 98, 105 influence anxiety of, 10 weakness as interpretive concept, 1, 6, 108 Jacobi, F.H free will, 74, 80–1 immediate knowledge, 82–8, 146–7 reason vs understanding, 69–71, 116–18, 189–91, 197 salto mortale, 20, 63–4, 79, 84, 88, 100 Spinoza, 76–87 walking on head, 160–1 Kant, I categories, 72 criticisms of Mendelssohn, 65–6, 97–8, 106–7, 205–8, 222 Ding an sich, 65, 72, 73, 89, 146 existence as a predicate, 65, 97–8 reason vs understanding, 191, 197–8 synthetic vs analytic, 147 truth, 104, 200–4 Keats, J., Knight, R., 15 Leibniz, G.W compass needle, 20, 21, 80 evil, 136 pre-established harmony, 43, 72–3, 79–80, 161 relationship to Spinoza, 21, 72–3, 79–80 Lessing, G.E Spinozism, 60–3, 79–9 world soul, 62–3 , 48–9, 61–3 Lloyd, G., 214 Lovejoy, A., 60 Maass, J.G.E., 71–3 McFarland, T Coleridge’s Trinitarianism, 165–6 Coleridge’s understanding of Spinoza, 4, 39, 46–7, 53, 55–6, 88 defence of Coleridge’s plagiarisms, 2–3 ‘I am’ vs ‘it is’, 3–5, 39–40, 46–7 Jacobi, reason, 222 Schelling, 3, 162 Spinoza, 1, 4, 40, 53 understanding of history of philosophy, 3–4, 39–40 understanding of the pantheism controversy, 1, 12 Mclean, K., 221 Mason, R., 213, 214 Mendelssohn, M., 64–5 common sense, 80 induction, 105 ontological argument, 65, 97–103 orientation, 65, 103–6 purified pantheism, 64 Index relationship between Leibniz and Spinoza, 72–3, 79, 161 self-subsisting vs self sustaining, 94–5, 178 Spinoza, 64, 91–7 truth, 103–6, 200–4 Modiano, R., 166–7, 220 mysticism, 32, 39, 63, 73, 109–10, 112, 135–6 Nero, 36, 54 New Zealander, 6–7, 10, 222 Nietzsche, F., 45 Novalis, 24, 213 Oken, L., 167, 172–3 Orestes, 36 pantheism attribution to Spinoza, 29, 33, 214 controversy, 59–67 definitions of, 32–3, 64, 214 Perry, S., 212, 214 Peterfreund, S., 216 Priestley, J., 18 Pygmalion, 115 reason, see understanding Reid, N., 161, 219, 220, 221 Robinson, H.C., 42, 213, 219 Schelling, F.W.J anxiety of Spinozism, 163 causality, 124–5 defence of pantheism, 66–7, 122–3 evil, 119, 132–41, 154, 179–86 evolutionary divinity, 119, 123–4, 171 free will, 126–32 God, 119–26 Jacobi, 109–18 mysticism, 109–10, 135–6 231 Spinoza, 50, 95, 97, 114–16, 122–3, 153, 156–7 Ungrund, 67, 118–26, 132–41, 166, 170–1, 179–80 will, 97, 122–3, 156–7 Schopenhauer, A., 214 Schrickx, W., 21, 69–70, 212, 217 Sherlock, W., 19 silence, 15–23, 31, 130, 150, 209–10 Snyder, A., 222 Spinoza, B as atheist, 24, 31, 40, 62, 63 attributes and modes, 27–30, 73, 213–14 causality, 30–1, 49–50, 86–8, 124, 158–9 difficulty of understanding, 24–5, 32 dog constellation, 34, 77, 103, 174–5 evil, 35–7, 54–5, 119, 212 free will, 34–5, 50–4 God, 26, 32–4, 49, 76–9 infinity, 26–32, 48–51, 83, 92–4, 97 intuition, 78–9 moral character, 44–6, 215 as mystic, 26, 32, 40, 63 ontological project, 27, 213 thrown stone, 21, 53–4 time, 82–6 truth, 204 understanding understanding understanding, 6–12 understanding vs reason, 98–100, 118, 187–99, 209 Wellek, R., 11, 196, 198–9, 209, 222 Wienpahl, P., 213 Wizenmann, T., 65, 66, 217 Wolfson, H., 214 Zoroaster, 167–70 ... critique of McFarland’s Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition Understanding understanding: An hermeneutic approach to ‘influence’ Part I Coleridge and Spinoza Silence and the Pantheistic Sublime in Coleridge s... to either.2 McFarland, following Coleridge himself, calls these two tendencies the philosophy of the ‘It is’ and the philosophy of the ‘I am’ The difference, as McFarland sees it, is that the. .. of the entire history of philosophy on the idea of a universal struggle between the two The third problem is that the insistence on understanding the positions of the participants in the pantheism