!"#$%&'()#*+,-##
%#$.)/+&(012##
34(,+/#5+'+46#%67#,-(#80%9&(6,##
%'#%#:-4)(#+6#;.<)%#;-%6
!"#$%&'())(
$
%&'()*$+&,*-.$/-*).012)$3*&0')1$45&4$!"#$%&!'%(&6&7$&$89.&2'):4;$
45&4$3-(*1$:)<).$)=074$0:$45)$6&,$5)$0:4):1)1>$+5)$?-)'@7$<0<01$7(33)7A
70-:$-9 $0'&2)7B$047$7)*9A.)9).):40&*$&:1$?&.&1-=03&*$:&4(.)B$&:1$45)$-C73(.04,$
-9 $45)$',45$3-:3).:0:2$047$3.)&40-:$'&D)$04$&$?.-9-(:1$74&4)'):4$-:$45)$
?-6).$&.4$5-*17$-<).$45)$&.4074B$45)$9.&2'):4&40-:$65035$.)7(*47$9.-'$45)$
4.&:7*&40-:$-9 $01)&$4-$3.)&40-:B$&:1$45)$&C7(.104,$&:1$7?-:4&:)04,$-9 $?-)4.,$
&:1$&.407403$<070-:>$E&35$-9 $45)$45.))$74.-?5)7$&11.)77)7$3.)&40-:$0:$&$109A
9).):4$'&::).B$')*10:2$3-:4.&1034-.,$45)')7$&:1$10&')4.03&**,$-??-7)1$
74.(34(.)7$4-$3.)&4)$&$6-.DB$65035B$*0D)$45)$*&:1$04$1)73.0C)7B$07$*&,).)1B$3*&(7A
4.-?5-C03B$(:35)3D)1B$&:1$):40.)*,$35&-403>$+.&6*0:2$45.-(25$7(:*)77$-3)&:7$
!"#$%"&"%'($)!*(+$%"$+(!,)-$./ $.,#(,0$1.2(,%#3($%452%(+$'-!'$6-.2("(++$%"$!,'$
%+$".'$#(&"(#$78$,(!2%9%"3$!"$%#(!20$7:'$,!'-(,$78$':,"%"3$'.$*%+%."$/.,$+:+'(A
"!")($!"#$,().3"%9%"3$'-!'$/,!34("'!'%."0$'-.:3-$;!6(#$!"#$%"(*%'!72(0$%+$!$
C0F&..)*,$65-*)$&:1$65-**,$C)&(409(*$)=4):70-:$-9 $45)$7)*9>$
$
G:$5).$C--DB$)*$+,-./+0&12-"30&%(.&!"#$%&!'%(B$E*07&C)45$%35:)01).$
.)9).7$4-$45)$?-)'@7$?.)9&3)B$65).)$8/-*).012)$7&01$5)$5&1$3-'?-7)1$H45)$
?-)'I$0:$507$7*))?B$&94).$4&D0:2$&:$J&:-1,:)@$&4$K-.*-3D$0:$45)$7('').$-9 $
<=>=?@<ABC$D$E".6"$.5%:4$!##%)'0$1.2(,%#3($)2!%4(#$'-!'$'-($5.(4$!5A
5(!,(#$#:,%"3$."($./ $-%+$-!22:)%"!'%."+$!+$!$&"%+-(#$6.,E$!4.:"'%"3$'.$
F+(*(,!2$-:"#,(#$2%"(+?@G<BH$:5."$6!E%"30$-($/(*(,%+-28$7(3!"$'.$',!"+),%7($
(:40*B$0:$507$6-.17B$5)$6&7$8(:9-.4(:&4)*,$3&**)1$-(4$C,$&$?).7-:$-:$C(70:)77$
9.-'$K-.*-3DB;$&94).$65035$5)$1073-<).)1$45&4$86045$45)$)=3)?40-:$-9 $7-')$
!"#
!"#$%&'(&%!)&*+,%%!(!-&.")!*&,)-&"/,#!*0&,..&%$!&(!*%&$,-&1,**!-&,2,3456789&
:$"*&/3*%!("';*&<"*"%'(&$,*&)!<!(&=!!)&1('1!(.3&"-!)%">!-0&,)-&%$!(!&"*&
doubt as to whether he existed at all. Coleridge’s preface suggests that, had
the person from Porlock not disturbed him, he could have completed the
poem. Some critics, such as John Livingston Lowes (The Road to Xanadu80&
have accepted the preface as evidence that Kubla Khan is nothing more than
“a glorious but irresponsible fabric of free associative links, elaborate but
.''*!&")&%!?%;(!0&,)-&2$'..3&/!,)")#.!**45@89&A"<!)&%$!&1'!/B*&'=*!**"')&
with creation and fragmentation, however, the preface’s veracity, and the
<,."-"%3&'C &D'.!("-#!B*&-!>)"%"')&'C &%$!&2'(E&,*&,&FC(,#/!)%04&-!*!(<!*&
closer inspection. It is more likely that he fabricated the entire incident for
%$!&1;(1'*!&'C &/,E")#&,)&"(')"+&*%,%!/!)%G&2$!)&(!,-&")&%$"*&."#$%0&%$!&
“pass[ing] away” of the poem’s alleged inspiration serves as the perfect
backstory for a work that is both fragmentary and whole.
To counter the notion that Kubla Khan is nothing more than “a
literal opium dream or any other extremely remarkable kind of automatic
+'/1'*"%"')45HI80&J+$)!"-!(&,**!(%*&4%$,%&D'.!("-#!&2';.-&)!<!(&$,<!&E!1%&
%$!&/"(,+.!&-,(E&C'(&/'(!&%$,)&>C%!!)&3!,(*04&+"%")#&$"*&=(',-&+"(+.!&'C &
acquaintances with whom he corresponded regularly. Finding no record of
the disturbance in his letters, Schneider notes:
As no shame or disgrace was attached to the use of opium when the
poem was written, he could have had no hesitation on that score in
speaking of it. In view of his intense interest in mental processes and
in dreams especially, is it not very likely that such as event as he described
in the preface of 1816 could have occurred without his talking and writing
&
%'&$"*&C("!)-*&,=';%&"%9&5HI8
Operating under the assumption that Coleridge intended the work to exist
as a fragment, we may begin to dissect the poem’s hallucinatory imagery
198
and weigh it in conjunction with the broader context and symbolism of its
creation myth.
A close reading reveals that the poem simultaneously forges and
dismantles paradoxes through self-referential, self-negating verse. These
!"#$%&#$'()"'*&$!'#&!(+,"'%#'!-"'.)$!'$!)&/-"0'1-%2-'$")3"$'($'!-"'/&"*4$'
"5/&$%!%&#6'%!'%$'-")"'!-(!'1"'()"'%#!)&782"7'!&'!-"'/()(7%$%(2(,'9(#(780'
1-")"%#'!-"'/&"*4$'.)$!'(2!'&: '2)"(!%&#'&228)$'(!'!-"'+"-"$!'&: ';8+,('
;-(#<'=>'$(3(?"'/,(2"@'(!'&#2"'=-&,A'(#7'"#2-(#!"7@BCDECFG0'9(#(78'%$'
both absurd and magical yet ostensibly real and purportedly governed by
('$")%"$'&: '=$!(+,"'7%2-&!&*%"$@BH(-!%'CIDJG<'9(#(784$',(#7$2(/"0'%#%!%(,,A'
)":"))"7'!&'($'+&8#7,"$$'B=*"($8)","$$'!&'*(#@G0'%$'/%!!"7'(?(%#$!'!-"'%*(?"'
&: '!-"'/,"($8)"E7&*"0'1-%2-'%$'7"$2)%+"7'%#'.#%!"'!")*$'($'=!1%2"'.3"'*%,"$'
&: ':")!%,"'?)&8#7@BKGL+&!-'+&8#7'+A'!-"'2&#.#"$'&: '-%$!&)A'B($'$8??"$!"7'
+A'=:&)"$!$'(#2%"#!'($'!-"'-%,,$@MCING'(#7'38,#")(+,"'!&'!-"'"::"2!$'&: '!-"'
2-(#?%#?'$"($&#$'B($'7"*&#$!)(!"7'+A'!-"'%*/,%2(!%&#$'&: '=+,&$$&*"7@MJNG<'
The stark contrast established between the impossibility of Xanadu—with
%!$'%**"($8)(+,"'+&8#7$'(#7'=$8#,"$$'$"(@BDGL(#7'!-"'$!)82!8)"'&: '!-"'
protective, measurable pleasure-dome—with its established boundaries and
=$8##A'$/&!$@BCCGL$")3"$'($'('*"!(/-&)':&)'!-"'*(#%:"$!(!%&#'&: '()!%$!%2'
vision. Coleridge forges dialectic between the limitless scope of creative
!-&8?-!'(#7'!-"'#())&10'*"!")"7'2&#.#"$'&: '(2!8(,'2)"(!%&#<'
This trend toward paradox is indicative of the complications involved in artistic production. The poet’s struggle to capture the true image
(#7'"$$"#2"'&: '9(#(78'$%?#%."$'!-"'7%,"**('&: ':(%!-:8,,A'!)(#$,(!%#?'3%$%&#'
into reality. The fact that the speaker’s description of Xanadu is largely
dependant on poetic simile and metaphor — “as holy and enchanted / as
<'<'<'1&*(#'1(%,%#?@BCFECOG0'=($'%: '!-%$'"()!-'<'<'<'1")"'+)"(!-%#?@BCPG0'=,%Q"'
)"+&8#7%#?'-(%,'R'&)'2-(::A'?)(%#@BSCESSG'L%#!%*(!"$'!-(!'!-"'()!%$!'2(#'
translate artistic vision only in relative terms. Coleridge, in a frenzied attempt to recount his putative opium dream, is limited by the real constraints
199
!" #$%&'(%')#%&*#+)%,(-%.$)#/0+)12!&3&)*#/!#/4)#5!-*,6#)78-),,0!&,6#%&*#
analogies he knows. His description of Xanadu, then, as well as his transcription of the hallucinated poem, can never be considered accurate or
2!+8$)/)9#:)/6#.)2%(,)#/4)#54!$)#0,#(&/!(24%.$)6#/4)#"-%'+)&/#0,#2!&,20!(,#
of its scope and is therefore inherently, bizarrely complete. Inspiration, like,
;%&%*(6#0,#(&,/%.$)9#/4)#%-/0,/#2%&#&)<)-#4!8)#/!#-)&*)-#/4)#0*)%$0=)*#2!&cepts he or she perceives in an objective and authoritative manner. Instead,
he can only attempt to delineate boundaries in a boundless place, as Kubla
Khan does while constructing the pleasure-dome.
#
>!#"(-/4)-#2!+8$02%/)#+%//)-,6#/4)#3-,/#%&*#,)2!&*#,/-!84)#)%24#
-)$%:#%&#!88!,0&'#+)/4!*#!" #2-)%/0!&?#>4)#3-,/#,/-!84)#,)-<),#%,#%#@0&*#
of Genesis: the garden in the pleasure-dome alludes to Eden, while Kubla
Khan himself represents the Maker or artist, who is able, by merely think0&'#%.!(/#40,#8!/)&/0%$#2-)%/0!&6#/!#50$$#!-#A*)2-))BCDE#0/#0&/!#)70,/)&2)?#
In the second strophe, creation occurs as the mighty fountain bursts and
"!-+,#/4)#A,%2-)*#-0<)-BCFE?#G!$)-0*')#&%+),#/4)#-0<)-#AH$846B#%#-)")-)&2)#
to Alpheus, a river-god in Greek mythology, and alpha6#/4)#3-,/#$)//)-#!" #
/4)#I-))@#%$84%.)/9#$0@)#/4)#$)//)-6#0/#-)8-),)&/,#/4)#.)'0&&0&'#!" #.!/4#$0")#
and language. The critical difference between these two modes of creation,
however, is that the fountain does not seek to control or understand the
river, and does not need to. The artist, on the other hand, presumes he
holds power over his art, that he understands its nature. In reality, Coleridge
suggests, actual creation is as absurd and contradictory as the sunny pleasure-dome, and hardly controllable.
Coleridge’s juxtaposition of Kubla Khan’s manmade creation with
2-)%/0!&J,#&%/(-%$#5)$$,8-0&'6#%,#)7)+8$03)*#.:#/4)#-0<)-6#0,#-)8-),)&/%/0<)#!" #
the dichotomy between art and nature. Kubla Khan is notably absent from
the creation of the second strophe, and therefore has no bearing on the ori'0&#!" #H$84?#>4)#,%2-)*#-0<)-#0/,)$"6#4!5)<)-6#0,#&!/#!&$:#8-),)&/#0&#/4)#3-,/#
strophe—it is essential to the continued existence of the creations therein.
200
While man can create art, Coleridge suggests, art is ultimately dependent
!"#$%&'$(&)!*+,-.&.#%&./,&0#1-,)&#0 &$'.!1,2&3/,&4567/.8&0#!$.'6$9&:;<=&
from which Alph is born, therefore, can be viewed as a metaphor for the
“fountain” of vision and inspiration from which all artists and poets invari'*>8&(16$?2&3/,&47'1(,$)&*167/.&@6./&)6$!#!)&16>>)9:A=%&'>#$7&@6./&45'$8&'$&
6$-,$),B*,'16$7&.1,,9:<=&'$(&40#1,).)&'$-6,$.&')&./,&/6>>)9:;C=&'1,&'>>&(,",$dent on Alph’s water for sustenance. Kubla Khan’s decree, then—symbolic
of man’s artistic pursuits—is fueled by, but can neither match nor surpass
the unyielding current of nature and artistic vision that the fountain and the
sacred river represent. Presented as examples of binary opposition, Kubla
Khan’s attempt to organize nature according to human conventions and the
16D,1E)&!$-,')6$7&F#@&-'$&$,D,1&*,&1,-#$-6>,(2&G#&6.&6)&@6./&./,&"#,5&6.),>0 &
and the vision in the opium dream that allegedly inspired it.
A parallel may be drawn here between the acts of dreaming and
/'>>!-6$'.6$7H&./#!7/&./,&56$(E)&01,,&1,67$&#D,1&./,&*#(8&6$(!-,)&)"#$.'$,ous thought and instant creation, the body, like the pleasure-dome or the
poem, is physically restricted. Because the poem in its conceptual state—
stirring in Coleridge’s subconscious during the “opium dream”—cannot
possibly be matched by the limited reach of its actual form, it can never
become more than a fragment. Again, there is a paradox: if all artistic vision
is limitless and all creation is limited, what creation is not fragmented? In
Kubla Khan, the fragmented work stands as a synecdoche for the whole.
This contention—that the ideal must always succeed the real—is
!$(,1)-#1,(&*8&./,&).1!-.!1'>&'$(&./,5'.6-&>6$?)&*,.@,,$&./,&I1).&'$(&
second strophes. In the second strophe, the eruption of the “mighty foun.'6$9:;<=&6)&1,D,'>,(&.#&/'D,&-1,'.,(&./,&4)'-1,(&16D,19&6$.1#(!-,(&6$&./,&
I1).&).1#"/,2&3/,&7,$,)6)&#0 &./,&16D,1&1,>'.,(&6$&./,&),-#$(&).1#"/,&6)&"'1'doxically the result of the fragmentation of the “mighty fountain,” which
4*!1).)&'&@/#>,9&6$&./,&0#15'.6#$&#0 &./,&16D,1&J>"/&:K'/.6&;CLC=H&M#>,16(7,&
even goes so far as to use the term “fragment” in describing the “huge
201
!"#$%&'()*+(,#(+-.#/0(&1+023&+"&45/'12'$+,#20*6789:+;,&+)("/<(/"&+5! +(,&+
=5&%+%2""5")+(,&+'#""#(2.&>+-(,&+?")(+)("5=,&+@2)+45"'A+B#%21C+(,&+)&<5'1+
)("5=,&*6D#,(2+8EFE9G+H2(,+(,&+?")(+"&="&)&'(&1+4I+(,&+"2.&"+#'1+(,&+)&<5'1+
by the bursting fountain. The poem’s self-awareness—concomitant with the
=#"#00&0+&J2)(&'<&+5! +2()+2%#$&)+#)+.#)(+&J=#')&)+#'1+2()+?$/"&)+#)+2)50#(&1+
enclosures—points to a larger idea about the dual nature of art: controlled
and uncontrollable, it exists as a fragment with the potential to generate a
whole. Coleridge introduces a prophecy at the end of the second strophe,
warning against this instability: “And ’mid this tumult [of fragmentation and
$&'&)2)AKL/40#+,&#"1+!"5%+!#"MN'<&)("#0+.52<&)+="5=,&)I2'$+H#"O*67PQRE9:+
Here, Kubla Khan is thrust back into the poem, but not as the all-powerful
<"&#(5"+(,&+?")(+)("5=,&S+2')(&#1G+,&+2)+!5"<&1+(5+02)(&'+(5+-#'<&)("#0+.52<&)*+
— that long legacy of artists ultimately consumed by their struggle to cre#(&+4&#/(I+T+#)+(,&I+2))/&+(,&+5%2'5/)+="5=,&<I:+;,2)+2)+(,&+=5&%C)+?")(+
gesture toward the transcendence of description in favor of meaning. Just
as Kubla Khan is startled by the voices rising from the tumult, the reader
is jerked from the drowsy, indolent experience of envisioning the savage
beauty of Xanadu. The land, like the poem, is not what it seems.
With the issuance of the prophecy, we are launched in the third
strophe into a nonlinear description of the pleasure-dome—the meter
tenses, beginning to resemble the beating of war drums. Coleridge’s im#$&+5! +-(,&+),#15H+5! +(,&+15%&+5! +=0&#)/"&+M+@U5#(2'$A+%21H#I+5'+(,&+
H#.&)*6R8QR79+<5%=02<#(&)+(,&+21&#+5! +"&U&<(25'>+#+),#15HG+-%21H#I*+
between the physical object and the conceptual object, is an extension of
an object that can be exaggerated or diminished in accordance with the
movement of the sun. The shadow stands as a metaphor for the poem’s
1&.2)2'$T'5(+V/2(&+#+"&U&<(25'+5! +#+H,50&+4/(+"#(,&"+-#'+2'.&")25'+5! +#+
"&U&<(25'*6D#,(2+8EFW9:+X/)(+#)+(,&+=0&#)/"&Q15%&C)+),#15H+<#''5(+#<</rately represent the dimensions of the pleasure-dome, a creation cannot
properly represent the dimensions of the concept and vision that led to
202
!"#$%&!'()$*+&$!,-(&$./ $"+&$0#1''2$34&-#15&67.,&$8!"+$9-:&#$./ $!9&;<=>?@$
emblematic of the poem, is a paradox of fragmentation posited against
8+.4&'&##A-$5&B&9"!.'$-'7$-'$!':&5#!.'$./ $"+&$3.&"C#$:!#!.'@$-'7@$"+&$
#3&-D&5$9.'/&##&#@$0-$,!5-94&$./ $5-5&$7&:!9&;<=E?)$F.4&5!7(&C#$8.57$9+.!9&$
is apt: to attempt to divine meaning from chaos, or construct a pleasuredome, or poem, able to stand on its own in a world as absurd as Xanadu
!'7&&7$5&G1!5&#$-$0,!5-94&;H$#+.5"$./ $"+-"@$"+&$75&-,&5$8!44$-48-2#$8-D&@$
the drug will always wear off, and the poet will always stop short of true
completion.
“Midway” through the third strophe, however, Coleridge interrupts
"+&$7&#95!3"!.'$8!"+$-$#+!/"$!'$"&'#&$-'7$".'&H$#1((&#"!'($"+-"$#19+$0,!5-cles” are ephemeral and rarely miraculous, the image of the pleasure-dome
!#$#+-""&5&7$-#$G1!9D42$-#$!"$/.5,#)$*+&$#3&-D&5$5&/&5#$".$+!,#&4/ $!'$"+&$I5#"$
3&5#.'$/.5$"+&$I5#"$"!,&@$&55-"!9-442$!'"&5513"!'($"+&$#3.'"-'&.1#$B.8$./ $
"+&$'-55-"!:&$8!"+$-$J-55!'($-99.1'"$./ $+!#$0:!#!.';<=K?$./ $0-$7-,#&4$8!"+$-$
7149!,&5;<=L?)$M&$5&,&,%&5#$"+-"$#+&$8-#$0-'$N%2##!'!-'$,-!7;<=O?$-'7$
8-#$0#!'(!'($./ $P.1'"$N%.5-;<QR?@$-$'-,&$8+!9+@$-#$S9+'&!7&5$'."&#@$5&#&,%4&#$0P.1'"$N,-5-T"+&$/-4#&$N%2##!'!-'$3-5-7!#&$!'$"+&$/.15"+$%..D$
of Paradise Lost;<UE?)$
It was during the writing of these lines—with the associative leap
from Xanadu to the speaker’s vision—that Coleridge would have us believe
he was interrupted by the visitor from Porlock. Once again, the poem’s self5&/&5&'"!-4$'-"15&$#&&,#$#.$.%:!.1#42$7&4!%&5-"&$"+-"$!"$!#$7!/I914"$".$5&(-57$
the interruption as unplanned. Whether or not the visit actually occurred,
in any case, the visitor in the poem’s creation myth represents the point
-"$8+!9+$-5"!#"!9$:!#!.'$!#$#"!B&7$%2$3+2#!9-4$4!,!"-"!.'#@$5&'7&5!'($-$"51&$
5&B&9"!.'$./ $(&'!1#$-'7$:!#!.'$!,3.##!%4&H$95&-"!.'$!#$9.'I'&7$".$-$#"-"&$./ $
limbo, and exists only as the shadow of a vision, which stands “midway”
between fragment and whole, but is both simultaneously.
$
*+&$#3&-D&5$4-,&'"#$"+&$B&&"!'($'-"15&$./ $+!#$:!#!.'@$-'7$%&(!'#$
203
to romanticize the terror he would inspire if he were able to remember
!"#$%&'()"*+'%,+-%&*+./01234%5"67"4%"#%&8))*&#&4%5*89-%.$,+:%"6(%:"#%
)*5#$%:*%!;869-%:",:%-*(#%6+%,6$/01<3=:",:%6&4%(,>#%,%)*#(%?,6:"?89%:*%,+-%
brilliant as the vision that inspired it. He basks in the fantasy that “all who
"#,$-%&"*89-%&##/%"6&%7$#,:6*+@&%01A3%!&8++'%-*(#/%,+-%!7,B#&%*? %67#/01C3D%
those who see will view him, like Kubla Khan, as supernatural and godly
with respect to the “decree” of his pleasure-dome.
What he apparently does not realize, is that, like Kubla Khan, he is
subject to the inevitable “war” between art and artist, and prohibited by the
real from achieving the ideal. In spite of these limitations, the poet con:6+8#&%:*%-$#,(E%"#%?,+:,&6F#&%:",:%!G99%&"*89-%7$'4%H#5,$#I%H#5,$#I/01J34%
,+-4%:#$$6K#-%;'%!"6&%L,&"6+.%#'#&/%,+-%!L*,:6+.%",6$/0MN34%!5#,B#%,%76$79#%
$*8+-%"6(%:"$67#%O%,+-%79*&#%P:"#6$Q%#'#&%56:"%"*9'%-$#,-/0MRSMT3U%V#$#4%:"#%
speaker is constructing an elaborate scenario in which poetic genius is just
barely out of reach. The right word, he laments, is always on the tip of his
:*+.8#D%:"#%)*#(%,9(*&:%7*()9#:#4%;8:%+*:%W86:#D%,%(#,&8$#9#&&%&#,%*? %almosts is forever destined to haunt the inspired man. To witness such genius,
and the manifestation of such vision, he speculates, would prompt “all who
heard” to regard him as a man as powerful and wise as the Kubla Khan of
"6&%K$&:%&:$*)"#U%X9:6(,:#9'4%"*5#B#$4%:"#%*+9'%7$#,:*$%7,),;9#%*? %)$*-876+.%
a whole from fragments, and transcending fragmentation, is the sacred river
that makes fertile the “fertile ground” of the garden—the uncontrollable,
mysterious origin of inspiration which catches the artist and refuses to let
go.
%
Y:%6&%:"6&%K+,9%&:$*)"#=:"#%8+)9,++#-%,+-%8+?*$:8+,:#%6+:#$$8)-
tion of the speaker’s vision and the lavish fantasy of Xanadu—which, when
placed in the context of Coleridge’s preface, allows us to understand the
debilitating nature, and seductive power, of artistic vision as experienced
by the speaker and Kubla Khan. With the disruption of the tale of Kubla
Khan’s Xanadu, the speaker pauses to lament his inability to mold inspira204
!"#$%&$'%()$"*+%"$!#%&%,)-).!"#$%!/&!%,)0&"$+%!,*)%!#%"!+%+#*,.)1%2#3),"'()%
.#$-&!)+%!/)%,#3)+%#4 %5#)!%&$'%5,#5/)!6%(#'%&$'%0&$6%&$'%3"7)$+%!/)%"0possible act of translating vision into non-fragmented creation (“a miracle
#4 %,&,)%')8".)9:%!#%4)&+!"$(%#$%0"37%&$'%/#$);<')=1%>,!6%/)%+*(()+!+6%=/"3)%
unstable, can sustain the artist, just as opium can sustain the addict, Alph
the garden, and dreams the mind. In his lament, however, there is hope. Just
as artistic vision can never be controlled or even properly harnessed, the
artist can neither understand nor exist without it.
Works Cited
Bahti, Timothy. “Coleridge’s ‘Kubla Khan’ and the Fragment of Romanticism.” MLN6%?#31%@A6%$#1%B6%2#05&,&!"8)%C"!),&!*,)%DE).16%F@GF:6%551%FHIB<
1050. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schneider, Elisabeth. Coleridge, Opium, and Kubla Khan. University of Chicago Press, 1953.
205