想像力説研究
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Although Walter Pater sometimes disagrees with S. T. Coleridge's organistic theory of the imagination, yet his associationist theory sometimes agrees with Coleridge's early one, which is likewise associationist. But Coleridge's theory is, on the whole, thoroughly organistic on the ground of his same view of the world, while, on the other hand, Pater's is mechanistic owing to his own. But Pater is also a kind of "idealist", and, in this respect, he resembles Coleridge, who is also a genuine idealist. Coleridge's famous definition of the imagination (in Biographia Literaria, Chap. XIII) is largely due to Kant's theory of it, and so is Pater's theory of soul in style. And also they both borrowed from Schelling the theory of the imagination as the reconciliation of the subjective mind and the objective nature. But, in spite of all this, while Coleridge's theory is exclusively idealistic, Pater's is at once idealistic and sensationalist. This is because, while the former did not, the latter learned from Hegel the theory of the imagination which dwells on "the two aspects of mental idea and sensuous material." (2) Herbert Read : with special reference to Coleridge Herbert Read, who is said to be "the most distinguished disciple of Coleridge", is perhaps the only modern English critic who can understand Coleridge's theory of the imagination in toto. But until he can do so, he passes through the phase of classicism in which he criticizes it. It is the phase represented by Reason and Romanticism (1926) in which he replaces it with his own associationist (or rather analogist) theory, and by English Prose Style (1928) in which he regards Imagination as well as Fancy as an associative faculty. But, though in Education Through Art (1943) be often quotes it approvingly, it is not until in Coleridge as Critic (1949) that he justly estimates the romantic, as well as the transcendental, aspect of it.
- 大阪大学の論文
- 1963-03-25