
Jerome J. McGann’s observation that Samuel Taylor Coleridge is a “Romantic theoretician 
of Romanticism” because of his “scattered and unintegrated” theorizing speaks directly to a 
core aspect of Coleridge’s approach to Romantic thought. Coleridge, both in his poetry and 
prose, was not only a central figure within the Romantic movement but also a self-reflective 
critic of its underpinnings. His intellectual contributions were often expressed in fragmented 
or incomplete forms, creating a structure that resonated with the Romantic emphasis on 
process, intuition, and the sublime. This characteristic of Coleridge’s work has intrigued 
scholars, as it reveals how his incomplete expressions and scattered aphorisms embody 
Romanticism's complex and evolving ideals.

Romanticism itself celebrated the subjective and the boundless, often prioritizing imagination 
and emotion over systematic reasoning. Coleridge’s writing reflects this spirit by defying the 
traditional expectations of philosophical completeness and unity. Unlike the Enlightenment 
thinkers who championed clarity and coherence, Romantics such as Coleridge found beauty 
in the transient and fragmentary. His reliance on fragmented forms aligns with 
Romanticism’s valuation of the infinite and the unknowable, suggesting that truth or insight 
might be glimpsed only in moments, rather than fully comprehended in an all-encompassing 
theory.

Coleridge’s choice to express his ideas through fragmented forms—his “scattered and 
unintegrated” theorizing—embodies the Romantic ideal of imaginative openness. In works 
like his *Biographia Literaria*, Coleridge abandons a linear, systematic philosophical style in 
favor of an organic, sometimes chaotic structure. This allows him to explore complex ideas 
that resist simple or complete representation. In doing so, Coleridge implies that Romantic 
insight often comes through glimpses or partial realizations, rather than exhaustive 
definitions or totalizing theories. By embracing fragmentation, Coleridge not only theorizes 
Romanticism but enacts its principles through his method.

Coleridge frequently used aphorisms to encapsulate his thoughts, often in forms that appear 
as standalone insights rather than components of a cohesive system. His aphoristic style, 
reminiscent of the German Romantic philosopher Friedrich Schlegel, supports the Romantic 
view that knowledge is often piecemeal and fleeting. Aphorisms allow Coleridge to capture 
his ideas as self-contained insights that retain a degree of ambiguity, encouraging the reader 
to engage imaginatively with them. Rather than dictating a final conclusion, Coleridge’s 
aphorisms suggest that his thoughts are points of departure rather than destinations.

A notable example is Coleridge’s view of the imagination, which he famously defines as the 
“esemplastic” power—the faculty that “shapes and creates.” Rather than laying out an 
exhaustive theory of imagination, he offers this single, concentrated insight. The word 
“esemplastic,” coined by Coleridge, serves as a compact, aphoristic representation of his 
views on imagination. This fragmentary approach allows Coleridge’s theory to remain open-
ended, permitting readers to interpret and expand upon it in their ways. His aphoristic 
method reflects the belief that understanding is inherently subjective and mediated by 
individual experience—a central tenet of Romantic thought.

The fragment as a form has epistemic value in Coleridge’s work, reflecting his belief in the 
partiality of human knowledge. Just as his poetic fragments suggest moments of insight that 
evade complete representation, his theoretical fragments imply that ultimate truth is elusive. 
In this sense, fragmentation is not simply a stylistic choice but a philosophical position. By 
embracing fragmentation, Coleridge acknowledges the limitations of human understanding, 
presenting his ideas as tentative and open to revision.

Coleridge’s most famous fragment, *Kubla Khan,* is a paradigmatic example of how the 
unfinished can serve as an artistic and philosophical symbol. According to Coleridge, the 
poem came to him in a dream-like vision, but upon waking, he was only able to record part 
of it before being interrupted. This incomplete status imbues the poem with a sense of 
mystery and ineffability that aligns with Romantic ideals. Rather than detracting from its 
value, the poem’s fragmentary nature intensifies its impact, leaving readers with a sense of 
the sublime—a feeling of awe for what lies beyond the limits of human expression.

“Kubla Khan” illustrates how Coleridge uses incompleteness to evoke the Romantic theme of 
the sublime. The poem’s unfinished form mirrors its content, as it depicts a vision of an 
exotic and unreachable paradise. By leaving the poem incomplete, Coleridge draws 
attention to the limits of poetic expression, suggesting that true beauty and insight are 
inherently beyond the reach of language. The incomplete state of “Kubla Khan” thus 
becomes a Romantic statement in itself, as it conveys the idea that ultimate reality is elusive 
and that the artist’s vision is, by nature, incomplete.

This embrace of the fragmentary is evident in Coleridge’s philosophical writings as well, 
where he often abandons a formal, systematic structure in favor of digressions and 
reflections. His *Biographia Literaria* is filled with digressive passages, interruptions, and 
unfinished thoughts that prevent it from forming a unified treatise on literary criticism. This 
apparent lack of structure reflects Coleridge’s own inner conflicts and evolving ideas, 
allowing him to present his thoughts in a way that honors the complexity and multiplicity of 
human experience. Just as “Kubla Khan” remains a tantalizing fragment, the *Biographia 
Literaria* stands as a work-in-progress, a reflection of Coleridge’s ever-shifting perspective.

Coleridge’s willingness to leave his work incomplete also highlights a Romantic rejection of 
closure and finality. Romanticism valued the process of becoming over fixed states of being, 
celebrating the journey of discovery rather than its endpoint. By refusing to give his theories 
a definitive shape, Coleridge aligns himself with this Romantic valorization of the unfinished. 
His work suggests that understanding is always in flux, a view that rejects the Enlightenment 
ideal of complete, systematic knowledge.

This Romantic embrace of the incomplete also characterizes Coleridge’s views on the self 
and personal identity. In his philosophical reflections, he often presents the self as fluid and 
evolving, resisting any final definition. By refusing to impose a rigid structure on his ideas, 
Coleridge reflects his belief in the open-ended nature of selfhood. Just as his writings remain 
fragmentary, his conception of the self is marked by an ongoing process of growth and 
transformation. This emphasis on incompleteness underscores the Romantic notion of life as 
a continual process of self-discovery, rather than a journey toward a fixed destination.

In his philosophical writings, Coleridge acknowledges the role of imagination and intuition as 
tools that guide human understanding. His incomplete presentations thus signal a Romantic 
philosophy that places greater trust in the organic unfolding of ideas than in the rigid 
frameworks of logical deduction. His use of fragmentary forms allows him to present ideas in 
a way that respects their complexity, avoiding the reductive clarity that might diminish their 
richness. By maintaining a fragmentary structure, Coleridge reflects the Romantic view that 
knowledge is not something to be definitively grasped but something to be continually 
pursued.

Coleridge’s use of fragmentation has influenced subsequent generations of writers and 
thinkers, who have seen in his incomplete works a model for their explorations of complexity 
and ambiguity. His fragmented style prefigures modernist and postmodernist approaches to 
literature and philosophy, which similarly embrace the fragment as a way of expressing the 
multiplicity of meaning. Writers like T.S. Eliot and philosophers like Walter Benjamin have 
drawn upon Coleridge’s fragmentary approach to construct works that resist closure, 
echoing his belief in the partiality of human knowledge.

Moreover, Coleridge’s fragmentary theorizing reflects a view of language itself as limited and 
inherently incomplete. In *Biographia Literaria* and his other writings, he grapples with the 
idea that language can never fully capture reality. His fragmented style expresses this 
tension, suggesting that while language can point toward truth, it ultimately falls short of 
embodying it. Coleridge’s use of fragments thus conveys a Romantic skepticism about 
language’s ability to capture the infinite, a theme that has continued to resonate in literary 
and philosophical thought.

McGann’s description of Coleridge as a “theoretician of Romanticism” because of his 
“scattered and unintegrated” theorizing aptly captures Coleridge’s unique contribution to 
Romantic thought. His use of fragmentation and incompleteness is not merely a stylistic 
choice but a reflection of his Romantic philosophy, which values the open-ended, the 
subjective, and the ineffable. Through his fragmented aphorisms, his unfinished poems, and 
his digressive prose, Coleridge presents a view of knowledge and art that defies closure, 
suggesting that truth is not a fixed destination but a continual journey. His work embodies 
the Romantic celebration of the incomplete, offering glimpses of insight that remain open to 
interpretation and inviting readers to participate in the creative process.

Coleridge’s fragmented theorizing thus serves as both a critique and an enactment of 
Romanticism, revealing how the fragment can be a powerful tool for expressing the richness 
and complexity of human experience. In embracing fragmentation, Coleridge leaves a legacy 
that speaks to the enduring power of the unfinished, reminding us that sometimes the truest 
insights come not from final answers, but from the open-ended process of seeking them. His 
approach suggests that the value of Romantic thought lies not in its completeness, but in its 
invitation to continually reimagine and reinterpret the mysteries of existence.
