AcceptingMill’sview，itisremarkablethatthegreaterrorofhisownschool，whichprofessedtobebaseduponexperience，wastherejectionofhistory；andthegreatmeritoftheaprioriand’intuitionist’schoolwaspreciselytheirinsistenceuponhistory。TothisIshallhavetoreturnhereafter。Meanwhile，MillproceedstoshowhowColeridge，byarguingfromthe’idea’ofchurchandstate，hadatleastrecognisedthenecessityofshowingthatpoliticalandsocialinstitutionsmusthaveasufficientreason，andbejustifiedbysomethingmorethanmereobstinateprejudice。MenlikePittandSirRobertPeel，iftheyacceptedColeridge’ssupport，wouldhavetoaltertheirwholeposition，Coleridge’sdefenceofhisidealchurchwasatoncetheseverestsatireupontheexistingbodyandaproof，asagainstBenthamandAdamSmith，oftheadvantagesofanendowedclassforthecultivationanddiffusionoflearning。Coleridge，moreover，thoughheobjectedtotheReformBill，showedhimselfabetterreformerthanLordJohnRussell。HeadmittedwhattheWhigsrefusedtosee，thenecessityofdiminishingtheweightofthelandownerinterest。Landownerswerenottobeultimatesourcesofpower，buttorepresentonefactorinareasonedsystem。Inshort，byadmittingthatallsocialarrangementsinsomesensewereembodimentsofreason，headmittedthattheymustalsobemadetoconformtoreason。
　　ColeridgeandBentham，then，arenotreallyenemiesbutallies，andtheywieldpowerswhichare’oppositepolesofonegreatforceofprogression。’31thequestion，however，remains，howthephilosophyofeachleaderisreallyconnectedwithhispracticalconclusions。Mill’sviewwouldapparentlybethatColeridgesomehowmanagedtocorrecttheerrorsorfillthegapsoftheUtilitariansystem——averynecessarytask，asMilladmits——whileColeridgewouldhaveheldthatthoseerrorsweretheinevitablefruitofthewholeempiricalsystemofthought。TheReasonmustberestoredtoitsrightfulsupremacyovertheUnderstanding，whichhadbeenworkingitswickedwillsincethedaysofLockeandtheeighteenthcentury。Theproblemisawideone。I
　　mustbecontenttoremarktheinevitableantithesis。Whetherenemiesorallies，theUtilitariansandtheirantagonistswereseparatedbyagulfwhichcouldnotbebridgedforthetime。Themenofcommon-sense，whohadnophilosophyatall，wereshockedbytheimmediatepracticalapplicationsofUtilitarianism，itshostilitytotheoldorderwhichtheyloved，itsapparenthelplessnessinsocialquestions，itsrelegationofallprogresstotheconflictofselfishinterests，itsindifferencetoallthevirtuesassociatedwithpatriotismandlocalties。Bymorereflectiveminds，itwascondemnedasrobbingtheworldofitspoetry，stiflingthereligiousemotions，andevenquenchingsentimentingeneral。Thefewwhowishedforaphilosophyfoundtherootofitserrorsintheassumptionswhichreducedtheworldtoachaosofatoms，outwardlyconnectedandcombinedintomeredeadmechanism。Theworld，forthepoetandthephilosopheralike，mustbenotacongeriesofseparatethings，butinsomesenseaproductofreason。
　　Thought，notfact，mustbetheultimatereality。Unfortunatelyorotherwise，thepoeticalsentimentcouldnevergetitselftranslatedintophilosophicaltheory。Coleridge’srandomanddiscursivehintsremainedmerehints——
　　asuggestionatbestforfuturethought。Mill’scriticismshowshowfartheycouldbeassimilatedbyasingularlycandidUtilitarian。Tohim，wesee，theyrepresentedmainlythetruththathisownparty，followingthegeneraltendencyoftheeighteenthcentury，hadbeenledtoneglectthevitalimportanceoftheconstructiveelementsofsociety；thattheyhadsacrificedordertoprogress，andthereforeconfoundedprogresswithdestruction，andfailedtoperceivetherealimportanceinpasttimesevenoftheinstitutionswhichhadbecomeobsolete。Socialatomismorindividualism，therefore，impliedatotalmisconceptionofwhatMillcallsthe’evolutionofhumanity。’
　　Thismarksacriticalpoint。The’Germano-Coleridgians’hadatheoryofevolution。Byevolution，indeed，wasmeantadialecticalevolution；theevolutionof’ideas’orreason，inwhicheachstageofhistoryrepresentsamomentofsomevastandtranscendentalprocessofthought。Evolution，sounderstood，seemedrightlyorwronglytobemeremysticismorintellectualjuggling。Ittookleaveoffact，ormanagedbysomeillegitimateprocesstogivetoacrudegeneralisationfromexperiencetheappearanceofapurelylogicaldeduction。Inthisshape，therefore，itwasreallyopposedtoscience，althoughthetimewastocomeinwhichevolutionwouldpresentitselfinascientificform。32Meanwhile，theconcessionsmadebyJ。S。
　　Millwerenotapprovedbyhisfellows，andwouldhavebeenregardedaslittleshortoftreasonbytheolderUtilitarians。Thetwoschools，ifColeridge’sfollowerscouldbecalledaschool，regardedeachother’sdoctrinesassimplycontradictory。Inappealingtoexperienceandexperiencealone，theUtilitarians，astheiropponentsheld，hadreducedtheworldtoadeadmechanism，destroyedeveryelementofcohesion，madesocietyastruggleofselfishinterests，andstruckattheveryrootsofallorder，patriotism，poetry，andreligion。Theyretortedthattheircriticswereblindadherentsofantiquatedprejudice，andsoughttocovesuperstitionanddespotismeitherbyunprovabledogmaticassertions，orbytakingrefugeinacloudymysticaljargon，whichreallymeantnothing。
　　Theydidnotloveeachother。
　　Notes：
　　1。SeeDictionaryofNationalBiography，under’GeorgeGrote。’Bentham’sMS。
　　isintheBritishMuseum，andshows，Ithink，thatGrote’sshareintheworkwasagooddealmorethanmereediting。IquotefromareprintbyTruelove1875。ItwasprivatelyreprintedbyGrotehimselfin1866。
　　2。Cf。Hobbes’sdefinition：
　　’Fearofpowerinvisiblefeignedbythemind，orimaginedfromtalespubliclyallowed，[is]RELIGION：notallowed，SUPERSTITIONS。Andwhenthepowerimaginedistrulysuchasweimagine，TRUERELIGION。’-
　　Works，Molesworth，iii，45。
　　3。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
　　ii，pp。11-15。
　　4。Ibid。，p。17。
　　5。’PhilipBeauchamp，’p。
　　21。
　　6。Ibid。，pp。22and104。
　　7。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
　　iii。
　　8。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
　　iv。
　　9。Ibid。，p。45，ch。v。
　　10。Ibid。，p。52，ch。vi。
　　11。’PhilipBeauchamp，’ch。
　　viii。
　　12。Ibid。，partii，ch。i。
　　13。Ibid。，p。80，partii，ch。ii。
　　14……’PhilipBeauchamp，’
　　pp。97，99。
　　15。Ibid。，p。101。
　　16。Ibid。，p。103。
　　17。’PhilipBeauchamp，’p。
　　163。
　　18。Ibid。，p。122。
　　19。ThewriterswereChalmers，Kidd，Whewell，SirCharlesBell，Roget，Buckland，Kirby，andProut。Theessaysappearedfrom1833to1835。TheversatileBroughamshortlyafterwardseditedPaley’sNaturalTheology。
　　20。’PhilipBeauchamp。’p。
　　88。
　　21。Froude’sCarlyle，i，215；ii，93。
　　22。Mill’sDissertations，i，235；ii。130。
　　23。GeorgeBorrow’svehementdislikeofScottastheinventorofPuseyismandmodernJesuitismofallkindsischaracteristic。
　　24。Prelude，bk。xiii。
　　25。Coleridge’sLetters1890，pp。643-49。
　　26。MrHutchinsonStirlinginsistsuponthisintheFortnightlyReviewforJuly1867。
　　Heproves，Ithink，thatColeridge’sknowledgeofthevariousschemesofGermanphilosophyandofthepreciserelationofKant，Fichte，andSchellingwasaltogetherdesultoryandconfused。Howfarthisisimportantdependsuponwhetherweattachmuchorlittleimportancetoprecisecombinationsofwordsusedbythesephilosophers。
　　27。Dissertations，i，392-474。
　　28。Ibid。，i，424。
　　29。Dissertations，i，437。
　　30。Ibid。，i，425-27。
　　31。Dissertations，i，437。
　　32。Coleridge’sHintstowardstheFormationofamoreComprehensiveTheoryofLife，editedbyS。B。Watson，in1848，isacuriousattempttoapplyhisevolutiondoctrinetonaturalscience。Lewes，inhisLettersonComte’sPhilosophyoftheSciences，saysthatitisa’shamelessplagiarism’fromSchelling’sErsterEntwurf，etc。Itseems，asfarasIcanjudge，thatColeridge’sdoctrinesaboutmagnetism，reproduction，irritability，sensibility，etc。，are，infact，adaptedfromSchelling。Thebookwasintended，asMrE。H。
　　Coleridgetellsme，forachapterinaworkonScrophula，projectedbyGillman。AsColeridgediedlongbeforethepublication，hecannotbedirectlyresponsiblefornotacknowledgingobligationstoSchelling。Unfortunatelyhecannotclaimthebenefitofagoodcharacterinsuchmatters。Anyhow，Coleridge’soccasionalexcursionsintosciencecanonlyrepresentavagueacceptanceofthetranscendentalmethodrepresented，asIunderstand，byOken。