Opus Maximum

Last updated

The Opus Maximum was a set of philosophical manuscripts dictated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge to his friend and colleague, Dr Joseph Henry Green, between 1819 and 1823. It was not published in Coleridge's lifetime, finally emerging in the 2002 version edited by Thomas McFarland with the assistance of Nicholas Halmi. [1]

Contents

It is not entirely clear what form the book would have taken if Coleridge had published it. He died before he could assemble the various manuscripts and other notes into a publishable form, and the published volume contains four 'fragments' along with two appendixes and evidence of missing chapters. [2] It should be read in conjunction with the separately published Logic, since that volume completes the transcendental deduction which lies at the heart of the enterprise. [3]

It was also intended to form part of a larger Magnum Opus or Logosophia, of which parts exist in various manuscripts. [4] Mary Anne Perkins has set out the dimensions of that larger project in her Coleridge's Philosophy. [5]

Publication history

Coleridge had intended his disciple, Green, to publish the Opus Maximum after Coleridge's death but Green failed to do this, instead publishing his own work, Spiritual Philosophy; Founded on the Teaching of the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Green's work began by claiming that the distinction between the Reason and the Understanding was merely one of degree—a claim which showed that Green had not understood Coleridge's most fundamental distinction. [6] Green's failure to publish the Opus Maximum caused some controversy in the 1850s. [7] Green argued that the manuscripts were incomplete and 'scarcely adapted for scientific readers, ... or the requirements of modern science', [8] though Green's decision also prevented Coleridge's followers, immediate and future, from understanding his philosophical system—and the advances Coleridge had made following the failure of the Biographia Literaria to provide a systematic argument. [9]

The volume's eventual publication was also protracted, something explained in part by Thomas McFarland's claim to have taken longer not editing the book than Coleridge had spent not writing it. [10]

The long delay in the publication led to the myth that Coleridge's philosophical system was a will-o-the-wisp, yet another of Coleridge's projects announced but never put to paper.

The argument

As might be expected of a work by Coleridge, the Opus Maximum contains a miscellany of contents. As he wrote in a letter in 1818, 'my Thought are like Surinam toads—as they crawl on, little Toads vegetate out from back & side, grow quickly, & draw off the attention from the mother Toad'. [11] Evans argues that the volume's apparently unsystematic form reflects Coleridge's belief that arguments for God cannot be demonstrated using the resources of the Understanding, but must draw their substance from within their readers through the power of the Reason, and that the work is designed rhetorically to achieve this. [12]

The argument is broadly neo-platonic. As Carlyle commented sardonically, Coleridge had discovered 'the sublime secret of believing by "the reason" what the "understanding" has been obliged to fling out'. [13] Coleridge argued that the Kantian strictures on metaphysical argument only applied within the realm of the Understanding and did not restrict neo-platonic argument founded in the Reason. His argument can be rendered schematically: [14]

  1. Coleridge argues that 'will must be conceived as anterior to all' (OM 194) since will is the only entity capable of instantiating itself and thus providing the ground of the universe.
  2. The will can only instantiate itself in the form of a person (OM 166, 172, 195).
  3. Personhood is a communal concept: there can be no I without a Thou (OM 194-196).
  4. Since will, when actual, is unified, the I and the Thou must in some sense be the same. Fully actual Selfhood or Personhood can thus only arise within the Trinity, where the Father comes into self-consciousness in His recognition of the Son (OM 194-199).
  5. There is no sense in which the Trinity is riven, like Schelling's 'Absolute' or unconscious God. The Son, within the Trinity, is not Schelling's self-as-object; [15] and Coleridge's system does not share the unstable foundations of Schelling's System of Transcendental Idealism where the two primary and opposing forces can only come into being in a final synthesis—which is impossible and therefore infinitely deferred.
  6. However, the human will, which is fallen, is internally riven and thus can be derived from Schelling's deduction.
  7. The human will has its origin in the fall of the Satanic or Apostatic will (OM 326). The Apostatic will wills itself as something separate from God. However, will can only be actual if it is realised in the Trinity, so the Apostatic will becomes mere potential, lacking in all actuality.
  8. God offers redemption to the fallen will, in the form of a gift of actuality (OM 316-320). That part of the Apostatic will which accepts this gift comes into being. This is the origin of nature and of human selves.
  9. Human selves thus arise out of an original polarity of potential and actual (OM 227). These are the two forces that Schelling spoke of as lying at the heart of selfhood, but Coleridge gives them a firmer foundation and one which does not contaminate the Godhead with division or infinite failure (OM 317, 322, 326).
  10. Having set Schelling's argument on sounder foundations, Coleridge is free to use Schelling's argument (the transcendental deduction which was missing in the Biographia) to explain the origins of nature and of human selves. See System of Transcendental Idealism for more information.

The existing Opus Maximum does not contain the details of Schelling's deduction, with Schelling's three epoch's and Schelling's deduction of the categories of the Kantian Understanding. But Schelling's third epoch, in which both finite selves and nature come into existence in an infinite series of moments of perception (this is an idealist argument) does appear in Coleridge's Logic. In that sense, the argument is complete, though some of the details are missing.

The significance of the argument

The argument above supplies the transcendental deduction that was missing from the Biographia, with the deduction of the primary imagination appearing in the Logic. [16] Perkins and Reid argue that the Opus Maximum could not have been written until Coleridge made the conceptual breakthrough contained in a note presumably intended for Green in September 1818: [17]

It is ever awful to me to reflect on the morning of our first systematic Conversation, when we opened Schelling's Introduction to his Naturphilosophie and looking thro' the first 20 pages obtained a clear conviction, that he had imprisoned his System within a Circle that could never open ....

The argument in the Opus Maximum still formed the basis of Coleridge's thinking until his death in 1834. In April 1830, he said of the distinction between the actual and the potential:

This, this Principle must be studied and studied, till it is completely mastered—… before the other parts of the System can be received with a clear light. [18]

His failure to publish thus did not arise from a change of mind, though there is evidence that he continued to refine the argument in the late 1820s, so as to account for the survival of the soul after the death of the body.

Related Research Articles

<i>Kubla Khan</i> Poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Kubla Khan: or A Vision in a Dream is a poem written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, completed in 1797 and published in 1816. It is sometimes given the subtitles "A Vision in a Dream" and "A Fragment." According to Coleridge's preface to Kubla Khan, the poem was composed one night after he experienced an opium-influenced dream after reading a work describing Shangdu, the summer capital of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty of China founded by Kublai Khan. Upon waking, he set about writing lines of poetry that came to him from the dream until he was interrupted by "a person on business from Porlock". The poem could not be completed according to its original 200–300 line plan as the interruption caused him to forget the lines. He left it unpublished and kept it for private readings for his friends until 1816 when, at the prompting of Lord Byron, it was published.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Taylor Coleridge</span> English poet, literary critic and philosopher (1772–1834)

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was an English poet, literary critic, philosopher, and theologian who was a founder of the Romantic Movement in England and a member of the Lake Poets with his friend William Wordsworth. He also shared volumes and collaborated with Charles Lamb, Robert Southey, and Charles Lloyd.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling</span> German philosopher (1775–1854)

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, later von Schelling, was a German philosopher. Standard histories of philosophy make him the midpoint in the development of German idealism, situating him between Johann Gottlieb Fichte, his mentor in his early years, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, his one-time university roommate, early friend, and later rival. Interpreting Schelling's philosophy is regarded as difficult because of its evolving nature.

<i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> 1781 book by Immanuel Kant

The Critique of Pure Reason is a book by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, in which the author seeks to determine the limits and scope of metaphysics. Also referred to as Kant's "First Critique", it was followed by his Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and Critique of Judgment (1790). In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" and that he aims to decide on "the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics". In this context, a "critique" means a systematic analysis, rather than finding fault, unlike the term's colloquial use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transcendental idealism</span> Philosophical system founded by Immanuel Kant

Transcendental idealism is a philosophical system founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant's epistemological program is found throughout his Critique of Pure Reason (1781). By transcendental Kant means that his philosophical approach to knowledge transcends mere consideration of sensory evidence and requires an understanding of the mind's innate modes of processing that sensory evidence.

Goethes <i>Faust</i> Play by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Faust is a tragic play in two parts by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, usually known in English as Faust, Part One and Faust, Part Two. Nearly all of Part One and the majority of Part Two are written in rhymed verse. Although rarely staged in its entirety, it is the play with the largest audience numbers on German-language stages. Faust is considered by many to be Goethe's magnum opus and the greatest work of German literature.

The Biographia Literaria is a critical autobiography by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, published in 1817 in two volumes. Its working title was 'Autobiographia Literaria'. The formative influences on the work were William Wordsworth's theory of poetry, the Kantian view of imagination as a shaping power, various post-Kantian writers including F. W. J. von Schelling, and the earlier influences of the empiricist school, including David Hartley and the Associationist psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Absolute idealism</span> Type of idealism in metaphysics

Absolute idealism is chiefly associated with Friedrich Schelling and G. W. F. Hegel, both of whom were German idealist philosophers in the 19th century. The label has also been attached to others such as Josiah Royce, an American philosopher who was greatly influenced by Hegel's work, and the British idealists.

The unity of opposites is the central category of dialectics, said to be related to the notion of non-duality in a deep sense. It defines a situation in which the existence or identity of a thing depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other and presupposing each other, within a field of tension.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coleridge and opium</span>

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was an English poet, critic, and philosopher who consumed opium to address his health issues. His use of opium in his home country of England, as well as Sicily and Malta, is extensively documented. Coleridge's opium use led to severe consequences. Coupled with his health conditions, it harmed his life and adversely impacted his career.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">To Burke</span> Sonnet by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"To Burke" is a sonnet by Samuel Taylor Coleridge first published in the 9 December 1794 Morning Chronicle. Unlike most of the Sonnets on Eminent Characters, "To Burke" describes a person whom Coleridge disagreed with; he felt Edmund Burke abused the idea of freedom within various speeches and turned his back on liberty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">To Mrs Siddons</span> Poem written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"To Mrs Siddons" was written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and published in the 29 December 1794 Morning Chronicle as part of the Sonnets on Eminent Characters series. It describes Sarah Siddons, an actress Coleridge became fond of during his visits to London during college. The poem celebrates watching Siddons perform her various roles on stage. The actual authorship of the poem is uncertain, since it was attributed to Charles Lamb in various works. It is possible that Lamb and Coleridge worked on the poem together, and, if so, it would be one of Lamb's earliest works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">To Sheridan</span> Poem written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"To Sheridan" or "To Richard Brinsley Sheridan" was written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and published in the 29 January 1795 Morning Chronicle. As the last poem running as part of the Sonnets on Eminent Characters series, it describes Coleridge's appreciation of Richard Brinsley Sheridan and his theatre talents. Coleridge, unlike most, preferred Sheridan's somber works over his comedies and emphasizes them within the poem. Coleridge also respects Sheridan's political actions.

The Romantics, in seeking to understand nature in her living essence, studied the 'father of science', Sir Francis Bacon. The view of Bacon and the 'inductive method' that emerges is quite a different one from that tended to prevail both before and then after, here mainly due to John Stuart Mill's interpretation later in the 1800s. For the Romantics, induction as generally interpreted 'was not enough to produce correct understanding in Bacon's terms.' They saw another side of Bacon, generally not developed, one in which nature was a labyrinth not open to "excellence of wit" nor "chance experiments": "Our steps must be guided by a clue, and see what way from the first perception of the sense must be laid out upon a sure plan."

Romantic epistemology emerged from the Romantic challenge to both the static, materialist views of the Enlightenment (Hobbes) and the contrary idealist stream (Hume) when it came to studying life. Romanticism needed to develop a new theory of knowledge that went beyond the method of inertial science, derived from the study of inert nature, to encompass vital nature. Samuel Taylor Coleridge was at the core of the development of the new approach, both in terms of art and the 'science of knowledge' itself (epistemology). Coleridge's ideas regarding the philosophy of science involved Romantic science in general, but Romantic medicine in particular, as it was essentially a philosophy of the science(s) of life.

<i>System of Transcendental Idealism</i> 1800 book by Friedrich von Schelling

System of Transcendental Idealism is a book by Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling published in 1800. It has been called Schelling's most important early work, and is best known in the English-speaking world for its influence on the poet and philosopher, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. In this work, Schelling attempted to discover the ground of knowledge, within a Kantian framework. An English translation was first published in 1978.

The following is a list of the major events in the history of German idealism, along with related historical events.

Professor Thomas A. McFarland (1926-2011) was a literary critic who specialised in the literature of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. He was Murray Professor of Romantic English Literature at Princeton University.

The unconscious spirit is the supposed part of the human spirit or soul that operates outside of conscious awareness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Heinrich Nidecker</span> Swiss librarian and interlinguist (1894-1982)

Heinrich Albert Nidecker, also known as Henri Nidecker, was a Swiss librarian and philologist. Born in Alsace, he completed degrees at the University of Basel, earning a doctorate English philology in 1924. Nidecker spent most of his career as a librarian at the Basel University Library, where he developed a cataloguing system, and was responsible for the departments of English philology and philosophy. Nidecker was involved in the international auxiliary language movement, supporting Ido and later Interlingue; he authored several works in the latter. Nidecker also wrote on topics of social reform, and on the history of music in Switzerland.

References

  1. ↑ Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Opus Maximum, ed. Thomas McFarland with the assistance of Nicholas Halmi, Princeton: PUP/Bollingen, 2002. See the dust jacket for the dates.
  2. ↑ The present volume begins with 'chapter III'. See p.5.
  3. ↑ Nicholas Reid, Coleridge, Form and Symbol, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006, pp.154-156.
  4. ↑ See Thomas McFarland's, Introduction to the Opus Maximum, pp.cv - cxi.
  5. ↑ Mary Anne Perkins, Coleridge's Philosophy, Oxford: OUP, 1994. Reid offers a summary of Perkins's argument in 'The Logosophia' in Jeffrey W. Barbeau ed., Coleridge's Assertion of Religion: Essays on the Opus Maximum, Leuven: Peeters, 2006, pp.255-280. .
  6. ↑ Nicholas Reid, Coleridge, Form and Symbol, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006, p.135, footnote 39
  7. ↑ Opus Maximum, p.cli - clv.
  8. ↑ Quoted in Thomas McFarland, introduction to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Opus Maximum, ed. Thomas McFarland with the assistance of Nicholas Halmi, Princeton: PUP/Bollingen, 2002, p.clv.
  9. ↑ Reid, p.135
  10. ↑ See John Beer, 'Coleridge's Magnum Opus and his Opus Maximum in Jeffrey W. Barbeau, Coleridge's Assertion of Religion: Essays on the Opus Maximum, Leuven: Peeters, 2006, pp.288-289. McFarland's jesting claim was well known to scholars in the field.
  11. ↑ Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Collected Letters, Oxford: OUP, 1956, Vol.3, 94-95.
  12. ↑ Murray Evans, Sublime Coleridge, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
  13. ↑ Thomas Carlyle, 'The Life of Sterling', in The Works of Thomas Carlyle, London: Chapman and Hall, 1897, Vol.11, Chapter 8, p.53.
  14. ↑ See Reid, chapters 6, 7 and 8
  15. ↑ Reid, p.120
  16. ↑ Reid, p.155
  17. ↑ Reid, pp.viii, 128, 133; Mary Anne Perkins, Coleridge's Philosophy, Oxford: OUP, 1994, p.10.
  18. ↑ The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Vol.5: 6272.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.