NOTES ON THE NOTEBOOKS

1819–1826

Entries 4505–5471

4505 27.25 The entry was hastily scribbled in pencil.

Christies Vases: A Disquisition upon Etruscan Vases; displaying their probable connection with the shows upon Eleusis, and the Chinese Feast of Lanterns with explanations of a few of the principal allegories depicted upon them was published anonymously [by James Christie] in 1806; a second edition with considerable differences entitled Disquisitions upon the Painted Greek Vases and their probable connection with the Shows of the Eleusinian and Other Mysteries appeared over his name in 1825.

Coleridge might perhaps have known before 1825 that the work was by Christie, a prominent member of the Dilettanti.

If this entry belongs in 1819 as would be natural from its position in the notebook, M^r Westmacott could be Sir Richard W. (1775–1856), knighted in 1837, or his son Richard (1799–1872), also R.A. (1818). The father made many statues in Westminster, St. Paul’s, and other public places, and became R.A. in 1811; a more important link with Coleridge, he was a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana.

Or is M^r Westmacott Charles [Molloy] Westmacott, brother of Sir Richard, editor of various periodicals, e.g., Magazine of the Fine Arts and sometime cataloguer of the Royal Academy Exhibitions? His Descriptive and Critical Catalogue of the Exhibition of the Royal Academy (1823) is certainly critical, even caustic towards R.A.’s. Perhaps Coleridge wished to consult him about vases. Although Christie’s auction sales of vases are too numerous for positive identification, this Mr Westmacott may well have had knowledge about some painted Greek vases.

In the absence of a date, identification cannot be firm, but on 18 June 1819 there was a sale at Christie’s of painted “Greek Vases”, described in the catalogues as “of extreme rarity and great beauty, and many enriched with early GREEK INSCRIPTIONS”. There were also some “Marbles”, “a Bas Relief, and a few other fine Works of the SCHOOL OF CANOVA”, in which school Sir Richard Westmacott had studied.

4506 27.26 On electric treatment, and one of the leading “electricians” of the time, Eley Stott, see CN III 4387, and below, 4624 and nn. Was the patient here James Gillman? Or J.H.Green? In the reading He, the H is not entirely acceptable as Coleridge’s capital letter; if it is a J it carries over a stroke to the next letter, also unclear, but possibly ending in a full stop; the pen was running dry.

4507 27.27 The entry is based largely on William Mitford The History of Greece (edition unknown); six editions appeared in Coleridge’s lifetime, between 1784 and 1829. On Mitford cf Lect 8 P Lects (CC) f353.

Olen, Hymnist: Cf Mitford (1814) I 78:

It appears from a strong concurrence of circumstances recorded by antient writers, that the early inhabitants of Asia Minor, Thrace, and Greece, were the same people …and the whole Thracian people were, by some antient writers, included within the Ionian name…. Herodotus asserts that the antient hymns sung at the festival of Apollo at Delos, were composed by Olen, a Lycian; and Pausanias says that the hymns of Olen, the Lycian, were the oldest known to the Greeks, and that Olen, the Hyperborean, who seems to have been the same person, was the inventor of the Grecian hexameter verse. It seems a necessary inference that the language both of Thrace and of Lycia was Greek…and the Thracian Thamyris, or Thamyras, Orpheus, Musaeus and Eumolpus, with the Lycian Olen, were the acknowleged fathers of Grecian poetry, the acknowledged reformers of Grecian manners;… Olympus, the father of Grecian music, whose compositions, which Plato calls divine, retained the highest reputation even in Plutarch’s time, was a Phrygian. In the Grecian mythology we find continual references to Asiatic and Thracian stories; and even in the heroïc ages, which followed the mystic, the Greeks and Asiatics appear to have communicated as kindred people…. Herodotus remarks that the Lycian laws and manners, even in his time, very nearly resembled the Grecian; and the Lycians and Pamphylians were so evidently of the same race with the Greeks, that he supposed them the descendants of emigrants from Crete, from Athens, and other parts of Greece.

Trojans spoke the same language: Mitford goes on to discuss the Trojan War but does not say the Trojans spoke the same language. Coleridge no doubt inferred it from the absence of language difficulties between Greeks and Trojans in Homer, and from the Trojans, like Olympus, being Phrygians.

all Ioaones—Descendants of Javan: See CN III 4379, 4384 and nn, for Coleridge’s consistently eccentric spelling of loaones (for Ia[w]ones contracted to Iones, “Ionians”); see also below 4839 and n. In Gen 10:2–5 the sons of Javan (Septuagint , son of Japhet, divided “the isles of the Gentiles”. The name, Javan, is translated “Hellas” several times in the Septuagint. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 1 6 has it that “from Javan Ionia and all the Greeks are derived” (tr Whiston). Bochart Geographia Sacra (1681) I 174–5, which Coleridge read also (see 4839 f122 and n) summarizes the evidence and gives the Greek spelling of Javan, which accounts for Coleridge’s. Coleridge was interested in the long traditional blending of Greek and biblical “history”.

So too the Pelasgi: Coleridge, as also in 4839 f123, is disagreeing with Mitford and others (Mitford Chap I § 2, Chap III § I) who implied that the Pelasgi were barbarians, i.e. non-Greeks, migratory and primitive, and that the Greeks sprang from a mixture of them and other primitive hordes with more civilised colonies from Phoenicia and Egypt. See Mitford (1814) I 31. Again, Mitford (I 198) refers to Herodotus VII 95 for the view that at one time the name included all peoples of Grecian race. Coleridge’s an earlier migration, barbarized is his solution of the difficulty.

Hesiod…makes no mention of manuring the ground: Cf Mitford Chap II § iii, “It is remarked by Cicero that Hesiod, in his poem on husbandry, makes no mention of manure: but Homer expressly speaks of dunging land….” I 153. Mitford, in a shoulder note, gives the reference to the Odyssey (17.299) that Coleridge cites.

f34 The juniority of the Odyssey: To the Iliad, though not to Hesiod, has always been generally accepted. Mitford did not question the implications for dating, as Coleridge did, but continued on the same page to discuss “the culture of the vine”, and cited also the Odyssey (3.90) on Nestor’s having “produced some [wine], at a sacrifice, eleven years old”.

the Shield of Achilles: Coleridge was thinking of the description of the grape harvesting in the Iliad 18.561–72 (not mentioned by Mitford), one of the scenes on the shield made by Hephaestus for Achilles. HNC later in his Introductions to the Study of the Greek Classic Poets (1830), which owed a good deal to Coleridge’s conversation (see CN III 3656n), nevertheless maintained that the Shield of Achilles passage was not an addition but an integral “part and act of the Story itself” (87). See also his second edition (1834) 214–22. In a note to the Table Talk (12 May 1830) he said Coleridge was “a confirmed Wolfian” (in believing that Homer was the name not for one man but for numerous rhapsodists), but without having read Wolf’s Prolegomena. See also ibid 9 Jul 1832. As early as 1808 Coleridge was rejecting the “personality” of Homer as is clear from annotations on his copy of Chapman’s Homer (CM II under Homer); cf CN III 3656, also references under Homer in this volume.

4508 27.28 Coleridge attempted variously to explain the change in his opinions from Unitarianism and the more fleeting “Necessitarianism”; see 5113, also CN III 3743.

On the subject of the young being “less shocked by the doctrine of Necessity” see Lects 1795 (CC) 49n, The Friend (CC) I 338n.

Causa causarum: “Cause of causes”, a recurrent phrase; cf e.g. 4728.

4509 27.29 In pencil, lower left, at right angles to 4508 and later than it. The conjunction of names here may suggest the spring of 1819 and thoughts turning at the close of the philosophical and literary lectures towards publishers. Good Friday in 1819 was April 9, in 1820 Mar 31, in 1822 April 5, in 1823 April 10.

5^th–12: See the dates at weekly intervals in 4532, possibly associated with opium withdrawal.

the Good Friday Boon if possible: Some benefit connected with Good Friday, such as fasting, from the drug? In 1819 Good Friday was April 9, i.e. between the 5^th and the 12^th?

Or could Boon have been someone to be called upon, or to call, on Good Friday if possible? James Shergold Boone (1799–1859) caused a sensation in 1818–19 with his satirical poem on Oxford life, The Oxford Spy. He went down with a pass degree, throwing away brilliant abilities to lecture in London on the relation of the arts and sciences. Boone proposed and himself largely wrote a monthly periodical called The Council of Ten, of which the first of twelve issues appeared in June 1822. Did Coleridge know of him through Hartley, in 1819 in Oriel College? Was Boone seeking out Coleridge as he planned a periodical in the mode of The Friend? Or was Coleridge interested in him? The Council of Ten discussed some of Coleridge’s bêtes noires like contemporary reviewing and journalism, attacking QR and Blackwood’s among other periodicals. Boone’s bent is shown by his becoming, a few years later, editor of the British Critic and Theological Review.

There was also the Reverend Thomas Charles Boone, B.A., St. Peter’s College, Cambridge, who in 1826 published The Book of Churches and Sects, which systematically described many known and many lesser known denominations. But if Coleridge had any acquaintances with these men there is now no evidence.

1. Boosey: Thomas Boosey, publisher and bookseller with whom Coleridge had frequent dealings; see CN III 3262n. In May 1820 Coleridge turned down a proposal from him that he prepare excerpts from Faust to accompany a volume of illustrations to Goethe’s Faust: CL V 42–4 and nn.

2. Blackwood: 19 March 1819 Coleridge reported having an interview with William Blackwood. CL IV 928. They corresponded from April 1819 to May 1832, chiefly about contributions to Blackwood’s Magazine. 12 April 1819 Coleridge wrote to him a wellknown letter on how his periodical ideally should be run (CL IV 931–3), and another letter 30 June 1819 (ibid 943–5). Another in a vein similar to the former was written 19 Sept 1821 (CL V 167–71), after which no letter to Blackwood until 1830 has been published.

3 Colburn: Henry Colburn? He was until July 1817 editor of the Literary Gazette, and c Feb 1819 requested Coleridge’s permission to engrave Leslie’s portrait of him for his New Monthly Magazine; it appeared there 1 April 1819. Coleridge’s letters to him (Dec 1818–July 1827) suggest that he thought of Colburn as a potential publisher; see CL V 281.

4 Holland: Possibly the “Mr Holland”, not identified, whose invitation to write for the New Monthly Magazine Coleridge acknowledged 14 Feb 1818: CL IV 838.

Or is it Lord Holland? Or his son? If the date is 1819, Coleridge perhaps considered writing to Lord Holland for support against threatened repression of freedom of assembly and a free press. Holland spoke forcefully and urbanely in the debate on the Seditious Libels Bill in Dec 1819. Coleridge had been in correspondence with the Hollands as early as Sept 1806 (CL II 1182), at which time an invitation to Holland House miscarried (CL VI 1017). In July 1810 it seems likely they met in Keswick, at which time Holland’s son, Henry Edward Fox, was with his parents. On 28 Jan 1819 the son attended one of Coleridge’s Shakespeare lectures (CN III 3972n). Later Coleridge might have wished to applaud Holland’s opposition to the Alien Bill of July 1820; see 4700 and n. Was this a list of letters to be written and matters to be attended to?

5: The last line gives rise only to speculation, like so much connected with Mrs Coleridge; she paid a long-discussed visit to Devonshire and Ottery St Mary in 1823; see 4952 and n.

4510 27.30 Rabbi Barchana for his hat: In the Babylonian Talmud, in the treatise of Baba Bathra 74a, this story of Rabba Bar Barchana tells of how, being in the desert with an Arab guide, he put his basket [for bread] in a window of heaven, while he prayed. On ending his prayers, he found it no longer there, because the heavenly wheel, revolving, had carried it away; the Arab assured him he would find it “tomorrow”.

The story is told and ascribed to “Rabba, the grandson of Chana”, as his invention, by Coleridge’s friend Hyman Hurwitz in the Essay prefatory to his Hebrew Tales (1826) 27– 9. Hurwitz adds to the story itself the statement:

It is generally supposed, that the grandson of Chana accounted for the phenomenon by supposing, according to the Ptolemaic system, that the heavens turned round the earth. [Coleridge’s annus Magnus.] But it is not improbable that, by the expression, “Come and I will shew thee where heaven and earth meet,” he intimated, that the phenomenon may be explained in two ways; either in the manner just stated, or on the Pythagorean system of the earth’s turning on its own axis: for the disappearance and re-appearance of the fictitious basket would take place on either supposition.

Fortunatus Cap: I.e. the magic Cap of European folk literature going back to Hans Sachs (CN I 453 and n) and earlier, which transported the wearer anywhere at will.

The annus Magnus: the “Great Year” of Jewish, Greek, and mediaeval philosophy and folklore, or the 36,000-year period for the heavenly bodies to complete their rotations in every possible combination of positions; thus, as a result of their influence on human affairs, history supposedly repeats itself every 36,000 years.

Coleridge, clearly more interested in the tale than in the astronomical principles involved (the peeping into every window as it passes is his addition as well as the annus Magnus and Fortunatus Cap). He had tried to use his influence to get the Hebrew Tales published. On his translation from German of three tales in the volume, see The Friend (CC) I 370n. Coleridge used the magic Fortunatus Cap also at the end of C&S (CC) 184.

4511 29.14 The date inserted later is in blacker ink than the entry. The quotation marks and the reference at the end are a blind. Henry Somerville is the title of A Tale by the author of Hartlebourn Castle (2 vols 1797), but it is not in a series of letters, and the passage Coleridge pretends to quote is not in it. It portrays in sentimental mawkish vein, strained human relations, which may distantly have occasioned the use of the title here to cover up some personal misery probably connected with the Gillmans’ attempts to control Coleridge’s addiction. Cf the identification with fictional sensibility in CN II 2117, 2125, and nn, CN III 3561, 4272 and nn, and below see also 5005 and n.

4512 29.15 If additional proof respecting the facts of…Animal Magnetism were necessary: Coleridge’s serious interest in animal magnetism may have begun with a reading of C.A.F.Kluge Versuch einer Darstellung des animalischen Magnetismus, als Heilmittel (Berlin 1815), his copy of which is in BM; two annotations on it are in Inq Sp § 31, § 32. A fragment of an essay on the subject (BM Add MS 36,532 ff7–12) dated 8 July 1817 is in Inq Sp § 30. His interest was continuous from 1817 and at least into 1822—see 4908 and n—generally positive or at least open-minded; see also The Friend (CC) I 59 and n I, and a letter of 1 Dec 1818 to Thomas Curtis recommending the subject for an article in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana CL IV 886–7.

The contrast between the Reports of the German Magnetisers and those of the French is seen in Archiv für den thierischen Magnetismus ed. C.A. Eschenmayer, D.G.Kieser, and Fr.Nasse (12 vols Altenburg and Leipzig 1817–24).

quovis modo: “in some way.”

In Archiv I Pt iii 120–49 Kieser reviewed Annales du magnétisme animal (Paris 1814– 16), giving the 1 July 1814 date which appears on the title page.

“most believing mind”: Cf “still believing mind” in The Pang More Sharp than All: PW I 457; and “most believing heart” in To Mary Pridham: PW I 468.

f4 third Heft…Archiv…p. 127: Cf the same review in Archiv I iii esp 125–8:

Tr: Finally, let us make an early observation, giving chapter and verse later, concerning the difference in the phenomenon of animal magnetism in France and in Germany. Here in Germany it is well known how difficult even practised magnetisers find it to make their sick patients clairvoyant. And out of a hundred people who have been treated magnetically they succeed in producing the higher degrees of somnambulism perhaps in only a few. If we may credit all the cases mentioned in these Annals, the opposite seems to be the case in France. Clairvoyance occurs so easily there that persons who are magnetising for the first time produce it in their patients at the very first session…. What is the cause of this greater ease in producing clairvoyants? Does it lie in the different method of treatment, which in general is simpler there, consisting more in the effort and fixation of the will than in artificial manipulations, and in the greater precision and certainty of treatment altogether—i.e. in the subjective strength of the magnetisers? We are not inclined to accept this, for if it were so, then there must also be individual magnetisers here in Germany, most of whose patients would become clairvoyants, and because in France even novices in magnetising produce such rapid effects. Or is it to be found generally in a greater animation, in a greater irritability of the nerves, and in a natural disposition towards somnambulism—i.e. in the objective weakness of the magnetised patients who yield the more readily to the organic influences of another person? An interesting parallel can be drawn in this connexion between the general phenomenon of animal magnetism and the national disposition of the French as a whole; for it is characteristic of animal magnetism as one of the highest manifestations of human life, that it should reflect the true image of everything relating to the inner life of a person and a people. This much at least emerges from all the facts recorded in these Annals: that in France the animal-magnetic method of treatment depends more on the will than it does in Ger-many—which would then of course allow us to conclude a greater subjective strength on the part of the magnetisers.

the French Report under D^r Franklin: Coleridge referred 8 Feb 1819 Lect 7 P Lects (CC) f326 to a Report of Dr Franklin and Other Commissioners (1784), which was ordered by the King of France. The investigation, while admitting the fact of cures, denied the magnetists’ theory of a magnetic fluid diffused through the human body as an agency deriving from celestial influences, and susceptible to their manipulations. Coleridge agreed; see Inq Sp § 32. Mesmer himself did not claim proof. The Report described also convulsive reactions, effected through touch, pressure of hands, iron rods, and music, and argued that the results were partly the effect of physical contact, but largely of imagination.

properties of the Skin…Volition: In CN I 1827, referring back to an 1801 entry, I 1039; see also I 1826.

reactions of the whole & of all the parts: See CN II 2402 for this Coleridgian principle applied to the skin and nerves.

contagium quasi ingeneratio: “a contagion that is, so to speak, an ingeneration”.

Opium…on men of feminine constitution: For Coleridge on his own lack of “manliness” (especially in comparison with WW) see CN II 3148 f45^v, and Inq Sp § 221.

uterifaction: Not in OED; i.e. the whole system’s becoming the womb.

despoinism: Not in OED, from δέσποινα, “mistress”, i.e. female domination.

Whether Mesmer were the Discoverer of a new Power: The defensive remarks here were called forth by the review in Archiv 1 iii 128–33, of a work antagonistic to Mesmer, on the history of mesmerism since Mesmer’s first appearance in Paris.

a new Power…Electricity: If animal magnetism is a new Power it must be of a hitherto unknown kind, and at a different level in the hierarchy of powers. Is animal magnetism then neither animal nor magnetism, but some higher power seen at work in psychological and medical effects and still not understood, something like a cutaneous Galυanism? See below 4639 and n.

as Galυanism to common Electricity: Several kinds of electricity were recognized in the early 19th century, and it was left to Faraday to demonstrate that “common” and galvanic electricity are identical. “Common” electricity was produced by friction; galvanic electricity by the contact of two dissimilar metals through the intermedium of an electrolyte, as in the Voltaic pile; animal electricity was produced e.g. by the electric eel. There was some discussion as to whether nervous action was essentially electrical in its transmission.

Of the other work of the editors of this Archiv, Coleridge knew best Eschenmayer’s: see CN III 4435n and in this volume 4633 and n. For more use of the Archiv see 4624, 4809 and nn.

4513 29.16 In appearance like 4512, and probably datable close to it, 16 April 1819. Two-thirds of a page after this entry was left blank. Coleridge refers to this entry as elucidating 4644 ff26^v–27^v; see 4644.

The ancient Mathematicians: See 5294 f20^v 5406 and nn.

a line…engendered by a point producing itself: I.e. Coleridge’s dy.00000namic hypotheses in mathematical terms; see, in addition to the entries referred to above, 4718, 4974; also 4538 where Schelling is in the background, as possibly here, and in Chap XII BL (CC) I 249–50. But see also Coleridge’s interest in fluxions in 4797 and n.

The words engendered and producing are key terms. For the Naturphilosoph, Nature is alive, developing, and unified in its quantitative accretions and qualitative changes from within. It produces, and is product, active and passive. See Schelling Einleitung 5, 22, 30. All evolution in Nature begins from a point, which is finite, unlike productivity, which is potentially infinite. A line produced from a point, says Schelling (32 foll) is “unendlich”.

Schelling takes this metaphor for production even further in his “All-gemeine Deduction des dynamischen Processes” in Zeitschrift für spekulativ Physik I (Jena & Leipzig 1800) i 100–36, and ii 1–87; Coleridge’s copy, heavily annotated, is in the BM.

In these essays Schelling proposes magnetism, electricity, and chemical process as the three general categories of physics (i 102). He postulates attractive and expansive forces which, because of their opposition (+——0——−) constitute the dimension of length. A line in nature requires three points (i 109), like a magnetic axis. It follows (i 112) that length in nature “can exist only under the form of magnetism”. The first act of differentiation, metaphorically represented by a point producing itself into a line, is thus the production of magnetism.

The next productive step is the qualitative transition to electricity from magnetism, represented metaphorically by a dimensional transition from length to breadth or surface, as electric bodies (i 124–5) are electric over their whole surface. An analogous dimensional change takes place from surface to depth, from electricity to chemical process, which acts in depth.

Coleridge used Schelling’s argument in almost literal translation in TL 87 foll, to describe the development of life through successive organisms arranged according to powers correlative with length, breadth, depth; magnetism, electricity, and chemical process (galvanism); reproduction, irritability, and sensibility. These correlations are also Steffens’s, as noted below in this n.

For Coleridge the physical powers of magnetism, electricity, and galvanism are symbols of ideal powers, so that the more abstract metaphors of geometrical terms are perhaps more congenial because they make clear the difference between phenomenal and noumenal.

theorem (i.e. Actus…contemplans): I.e. the theorem is “the Act of one contemplating thus and not otherwise, contemplating itself as thing contemplated”. Coleridge calls attention to the derivation of theorem from θεώρημα, “contemplation”; cf below 4895 and n, 5404 f86; LS: SM (CC) 49nn and The Friend (CC) I 459 and nn.

theses (θεσεις): Again a derivation being noted; literally “puttings”, or “settings”, or “positions”.

from right to leaf: A curious slip.

to manifest itself is to produce itself: For a more elaborate treatment of themes and terms in this and the next paragraph, see CN III 4418, 4427, and 4436 and nn; they recur frequently in subsequent entries in this volume, e.g. 4550, 5090, and 5092; this entry may also reflect some general reaction to H.Steffens’s system of polarities, perhaps in part to his Grundzüge; Coleridge in his marginalia on that work, and on Schelling’s Einleitung, came to reject the argument he is trying to summarize here.

4514 29.17 The entry appears to be datable with 4511, c 16 April 1819. The end of it was compressed in being written around CN III 4203. Four leaves were torn out after this 4514, as indicated by Coleridge’s own numbering (see CN III N 29 Gen N) but as no stubs were left, the foliating provides no evidence of this but is continuous.

Coleridge here abbreviated an article in The London Medical Repository (August 1816) VI 89–97 “On the Poisonous Effects of the Bark of Angustura Pseudo-ferruginea, or spurious Angustura Bark”, by the toxicologist A.G.F.Emmert of Tübingen. Emmert distinguished between the genuine angustura from the West Indies [?quinine] and the spurious from the East Indies [?strychnine] or at least referred to the genus Strychnos, the plant from which the latter comes. He described experiments on animals with “Dr Meyer” finding its action violently poisonous with “a frequent convulsive pulse; an anxious and frightened look etc”. “The imperfect conversion of the venous into arterial blood” is Emmert’s phrase. On p.92–3 is recorded the likeness to Hydrophobia, the increased Sensitiveness in sight and hearing, and the case of a five-year-old boy who remained conscious and rational till the moment of death.

Emmert said that “every impression, however light—the touch of a fly, for instance, on any sensible part of the body, excites the sensation of an electric shock” (92) and (94) that the “effects…are felt in the blood vessels, and all parts of the body that are either furnished with them, or cover them as a thin cuticle”. The parallel with saliva of rabies is Coleridge’s, no doubt induced by the next article, “Observations on Hydrophobia” by R. Bellingham, and by James Gillman’s interest in that subject. Gillman had published a paper on it in 1812 (referred to as an “ingenious Dissertation” in the same periodical, No 2 for 1814 p 386); see also 4719 and n below.

Few and doubtful organic changes…after Death! “Putridity is at least not strikingly promoted or retarded by this poison. It leaves no organic changes in any part of the body.” Emmert 93.

Berzelius, Davy, or Woolaston: Coleridge thinks of the recently elected Secretary of the Stockholm Academy of Science (the leading Swedish chemist), and the two eminent English chemist-inventors and experimenters of this date—William Hyde Wollaston (1766–1828) and Humphry Davy.

Rubigo υirosa: Angustura virosa, the poisonous angustura, is so mentioned (Emmert 89) but no Rubigo. Is the Rubigo the bitter poisonous constituent of the spurious angustura?

Fluate of iron: Fluorine, a fairly recent discovery, analagous to the other halogens (chlorine, iodine, fluorine, etc) partakes of the easterly power of oxygen (see 4555 f49) which corresponds to contraction (cf 4719n). On the basis of this analogy, corresponding to the physiological action of the spurious angustura, Coleridge is suggesting the presence of the salt, Fluate of Iron now called a fluoride. Emmert 93 referred only to salts of iron.

Excess of Astringent+Contractive: I.e. Attraction modified by Contraction creates an excess of astringency.

Saliva rabipea: Rabies-causing saliva. See 4719 and n.

Coleridge’s last paragraph may have been occasioned by an article in the same number of the London Medical Repository (VI 118–32) on sM.J.B.Orfila Traité des Poisons Vol 2, in which rabies as being either “spontaneous” or “communicated”, is discussed, as well as cholera, “malignant fever”, “gaseous poisons”, and “poisoning generally”. This article was followed by “Observations on the Harveian Doctrine of the Circu-lation of the Blood” (pp 132–43 by George Kerr), in which subject Coleridge showed interest in CN III 4448. He could hardly fail to go on to read the next piece on “the Incubus, or Nightmare, disturbed Sleep, Terrific Dreams, and Nocturnal Visions”.

2 senses of the term, Probability: See 4809 and 5248 and nn.

The Lottery was an almost obsessive analogy; see CN II 2060, 2330, 2579, 2753; CN III 3343. See also LS (CC) 123n.

f6^v Solifidianists: Instead of the common use to mean believers in salvation by faith alone, Coleridge often applies the word to one who believes in one source or cause only (e.g. as here of disease).

“unique phenomenon”.

απαξ λεγομενον: “unique statement/a nonce word” here, “an unique occurrence”.

mon <mi> archists: Miarchist is not in OED; Coleridge is playing with two Greek prefixes meaning “one”.

μονη η μια της λυσσας αρχη: “a sole or one cause of frenzy”.

4515 29.21 This entry and 4516 appear to have been inserted on pages that were left blank, apparently out of a hope to continue the verses on Joan of Arc; see 4516 and CN III 4202 and nn. Although an 1815 date for these entries may be suggested by the references to Leibnitz here and in Chap VIII and Chap XIII of BL, more reasonable appears to be a date close to 4511–4512, which are similar in hand. This entry, followed by 4516, runs on to the top of f8^v on which the “Advertisement” of the Greek Grammar (CN III 4210) had already been written in June 1814 filling in part of the blank, but at that time Coleridge left the top half of f8^v empty, either for more Joan of Arc verses or for a title for the grammar; hence the exception in these MSS of an entry beginning low down on a blank page; see CN II 4210n.

Leibnitz…fundamental Power: Coleridge saw in Leibnitz’s “force primitive” (Système Nouvelle), in his monads, and in the ambiguity of his “representation” (Monadologie) a useful dynamic hypothesis to reconcile the many and the one, the parts and the whole, science and theology; but the Leibnitzian monad represents as well as the active the passive states, is a vis representiva (Vorstellungskraft), “a power of representation”, which deprives the originating or “Fundamental Power” (Grundkraft) of the fully dynamic role required by Coleridge’s monotheistic position. Although the natural world is for Leibnitz contingent on the will of God, i.e. another harmony might have been preestablished by him, and yet, although all monads are distinet entities, individuals, they are pre-estab-lished, conditioned; the will of the individual, therefore, can be said hypothetically, to be necessitated. Although man has access to the necessary and eternal truths and thus knows the perfection of God, he too is subject to, or acted upon by, the merely contingent; to what degree this is the case is the measure of his imperfection.

a probable Truth turned topsy-turvy: On Quantity, not as the ground of Quality but dependent on it, see 5103, 5155, 5189 and nn. See also letters of 1817 in CL IV 760, 790; also notes in CM I on Thomas Browne Pseudodoxia & c § 49², and in CM II on Hegel Logik § 11. The causal priority of Quality is argued also in Opus Max (MS) 1 f13. TL 51n also glosses this entry.

The magnet acts in length…the Electric Fluid in surface, the Galυanic in Depth or Body: See 4719, 4929 and nn; also TT 15 June 1827; and 4739 for an extension from physics to theology.

4516 29.22 See 4515 and n for the dating of this entry. Turn over to p. 28 (i.e, f12^v) was an instruction to himself, it being necessary to avoid the Greek grammar already on the intervening pages; i.e. continued from p. 20 means from f8^v; see CN III 4210 and n.

Sight as the most perfect Sense: A view as old as Aristotle at least, on which Coleridge offered some qualifying caution; cf 4518 f96 and n.

He could be recalling the views of his friend Thomas Wedgwood in “An Enquiry into the Origin of our Notion of Distance”; QJSLA No V (1817) III 2–12. It was not published in his lifetime but doubtless was discussed with Coleridge (CN I 1297 and n). Wedgwood referred to “a notion of distance from the eye, or what Berkeley calls outness”, and argued against the need for calling in the sense of touch to explain it. “A visual perception is a sign which excites the standard visual idea, and the whole of that process is performed by the sense of sight alone, for which Berkeley called in the sense of touch.” In other words, sight recognizes conceptions of relations.

In the second paragraph here it is evident that what Coleridge in 4813 below called the high dignity of Vision in Man is not in question, but is not to be reduced to mere modes of Sensation, as the empiricists do; it is more than sensuous, more dynamic.

Improvers of Locke’s psychology…: Berkeley is not among the names here, but see 4540, 5276 and nn where he is accused of reducing Perception to mere modes of Sensation.

Omne Scibile: “Everything Knowable”.

videre, et υideri: “to see and to be seen”/“seem”.

Agere et pati: “to Act and to be acted upon”/“suffer”; see also 5189, 5411.

per catachresin: “by a perversion of the meaning”; cf 5326 and n.

4517 27.70 For an explanation of the foliation in this entry see 4580n.

Christallization…: The first step in the ascent of life after the metals. TL 47.

Cohesion: See 4554, 4555, and CN III 4223, 4333, 4433 and nn.

X—Y…: See 4533 f100; i.e. the physical sciences deal with objects separated from one another and the zoological sciences deal with objects added to one another.

f98 Personity: Not in OED. The word is clearly written and to be distinguished from Personeity, as used in 5244, 5256, etc.

X—y…: Coleridge used capital letters here as a notation for predominance; see 4555.

f97 the Science of Theology…Theosophy. In an early annotation on his copy of Plotinus Opera philosophica omnia (Basel 1580), inscribed “14 Dec. 1805 Naples”, Coleridge wrote: “It is one of Kant’s greatest errors that he speaks so slightingly of Psychology and the weakest parts of his System are attributable to his want of the habits and facts of Psychology which with all its imperfections and uncertainty is next to necessary in order to prevent Metaphysics from passing into Theosophy and Theurgy— i.e. Dreaming and Conjuring.” Cf below 5094 f104^v, 5406 f93^v.

4518 27.71 The entry, the substance of which is closely related to TL, is a dialogue with John Abernethy. Coleridge was reading closely, questioning, and relating to his earlier reading, Physiological Lectures exhibiting a general view of Mr. Hunters Physiology, and of his Researches in Comparative Anatomy (1817), and An Enquiry into the Probability and Rationality of Mr. Hunter’s Theory of Life…. (1814). Abernethy gave the Hunterian Oration for 1819 on 15 Feb which Coleridge attended at four in the afternoon and then in the evening at eight delivered Lect 8 of his philosophical lectures.

Atoms: Cf Lect 3 P Lects (CC) ff90–95 where the subject is treated much as here on ff96υ−96.

Suffiction: See CN III 3587 f1^v and n; it is noted that Newton may be relevant there also in this context.

Surinam Toad: Abernethy referred to it, long a metaphor with Coleridge; see CN I 124n, CL III 94–5, and the 1809 Friend: The Friend (CC) II 212. Abernethy’s discussion in Physiological Lectures 317–18 was anatomical and referred to Hunter’s earlier work, which may originally have drawn Coleridge’s attention to the Surinam Toad.

Parmenides: It is now accepted, as it was by C in Lect 3 P Lects (CC) ff70–72, 90, that it was Parmenides (the real founder of the Eleatic school) who, with his eternal, continuous, unchanging, unmoving, spherical One, set the problem that the atomic philosophers tried to solve. But ancient sources clash, and Tennemann is inconsistent, at I 171–2 fn and at I 414–5, in his chronological table (giving 460 B.C. for Parmenides and 500 B.C. for Leucippus). For his chronological table in P Lects (CC) Coleridge followed Tennemann’s. His arguments that follow do not bear much resemblance to the arguments attributed to Parmenides by Tennemann (I 170–1). Coleridge’s marginalia on Tennemann I 174–8 censure Tennemann’s “pseudo-Kantian” interpretations of Parmenides and failure to give a complete text of the fragments. See also 4521 and n.

f96 physically indivisible: An early question of Coleridge’s related to his reading of Newton (CN I 93n). See Newton’s Opticks Query 31.

a Theory which commences with a miracle: Coleridge frequently made this point: Lect 3 P Lects (CC) f92, TL 45.

Cohesion: See 4517 and n.

a new set of Atoms: This had actually been proposed by G.L.LeSage in Essai de Chymie méchanique (1758).

Subtle Fluid: Cf TL 66, and Lect 12 P Lects (CC) f568 and n 60. This was an old objection; there is a long footnote to the term in line 34 of Coleridge’s contribution to Southey’s Joan of Arc Bk II (1796). The lines 34–7 read:

Their subtle fluids, impacts, essences, Self-working Tools, uncaus’d Effects, and all Those blind Omniscients, those Almighty Slaves, Untenanting Creation of its God.

The footnote is not included in PW I 135:

Line 34 Sir Isaac Newton at the end of the last edition of his Optics, supposes that a very subtile and elastic fluid, which he calls aether, is diffused thro’ the pores of gross bodies, as well as thro’ the open spaces that are void of gross matter; he supposes it to pierce all bodies, and to touch their least particles, acting on them with a force proportional to their number or to the matter of the body on which it acts. He supposes likewise, that it is rarer in the pores of bodies than in open spaces, and even rarer in small pores and dense bodies, than in large pores and rare bodies; and also that its density increases in receding from gross matter; so for instance as to be greater at the of an inch from the surface of any body, than at its surface; and so on. To the action of this aether he ascribes the attractions of gravitation and cohaesion, the attraction and repulsion of electrical bodies, the mutual influences of bodies and light upon each other, the effects and communication of heat, and the performance of animal sensation and motion. David Hartley from whom this account of aether is chiefly borrowed, makes it the instrument of propagating those vibrations or configurative motions which are ideas. It appears to me, no hypothesis ever involved so many contradictions; for how can the same fluid be both dense and rare in the same body at one time? yet in the Earth as gravitating to the Moon, it must be very rare; and in the Earth as gravitating to the Sun, it must be very dense. For, as Andrew Baxter well observes, it doth not appear sufficient to account how this fluid may act with a force proportional to the body to which another is impelled, to assert that it is rarer in great bodies than in small ones: it must be farther asserted that this fluid is rarer or denser in the same body, whether small or great, according as the body to which that is impelled is itself small or great. But whatever may be the solidity of this objection, the following seems unanswerable:

If every particle thro’ the whole solidity of a heavy body receive its impulse from the particles of this fluid, it should seem that the fluid itself must be as dense as the very densest heavy body, gold for instance; there being as many impinging particles in the one, as there are gravitating particles in the other which receive their gravitation by being impinged upon: so that, throwing gold or any heavy body upward, against the impulse of this fluid, would be like throwing gold thro’ gold; and as this aether must be equally diffused over the whole sphere of its activity, it must be as dense when it impels cork as when it impels gold: so that to throw a piece of cork upward, would be as if we endeavoured to make cork penetrate a medium as dense as gold: and tho’ we were to adopt the extravagant opinions which have been advanced concerning the progression of pores, yet however porous we suppose a body, if it be not all pore, the argument holds equally; the fluid must be as dense as the body in order to give every particle its impulse.

It has been asserted that Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy leads in its consequences to Atheism: perhaps not without reason. For if matter by any powers or properties given to it, can produce the order of the visible world, and even generate thought; why may it not have possessed such properties by inherent right? and where is the necessity of a God? matter is, according to the mechanic philosophy capable of acting most wisely and most beneficently without Wisdom or Benevolence; and what more does the Atheist assert? if matter possess those properties, why might it not have possessed them from all eternity? Sir Isaac Newton’s Deity seems to be alternately operose and indolent; to have delegated so much power as to make it inconceivable what he can have reserved. He is dethroned by Vice-regent second causes.

We seem placed here to acquire a knowledge of effects. Whenever we would pierce into the Adyta of Causation, we bewilder ourselves; and all, that laborious Conjecture can do, is to fill up the gaps of imagination. We are restless, because invisible things are not the objects of vision—and philosophical systems, for the most part, are received not for their Truth, but in proportion as they attribute to Causes a suscepti-bility of being seen, whenever our visual organs shall have become sufficiently powerful.

Joan of Arc (1796) 41–2.

Fluids and atoms, conceptually, were fashionable partners. Cf a note on Swedenborg Oeconomia regni animalis (1740) 361 (tipped in) where Coleridge complained about Swedenborg’s use of “fluid”, as a thing, instead of a power.

ff9⁶–95^v slavery to the Eye…emancipate his mind: Two important Coleridgian phrases. On the first cf Chap VI BL (CC) I 107, ShC II iii, and a note on Scotus Erigena quoted in Lect 9 P Lects (CC) n 18. On the second, see Joan of Arc Bk II, and The Destiny of Nations.

For Fancy is the power

That first unsensualizes the dark mind,…

(lines 80–1): PW I 134. The Destiny of Nations, first published complete in SL 1817, has other links with this entry.

Pythagoras…all-permeating Ether…intended hieroglyphically: Coleridge was here disagreeing with Tennemann, who doubted whether the Pythagoreans held this belief: Tennemann 1 210 fn, with a marginal note by Coleridge. Coleridge defended Pythagoras against literalists and denigrators; cf marginal notes on Tennemann I 107–8, 120 quoted in notes to Lect 2 P Lects (CC) ff43–53, especially nn 33, 60, 61, 64.

an Object that is its own Subject…Mind: See 5215 f23^v and n.

f95 Congreve Rocket: A military rocket invented by Sir William Congreve (1772– 1828), fired from small boats against the French from 1805 onwards. Wellington was not enthusiastic about them because of their dangerous unreliability. Congreve, a prolific inventor, was in 1811 elected F.R.S.

Electricity…Forces: Electricity as a manifestation of the E-W power of Oxygen— Hydrogen (4555 f49). E=its particularization, W=its universalization.

f94^v anima, spiritus, &c aura ignea: “soul, spirit, &c fiery air”.

(for Air and Water…Electricity): Are these the lines to be omitted as peculiar opinions? And is this instruction an indication that Coleridge was dictating from the notebook here?

f94 M^r Abernethie…Life…organization: Coleridge has misread: Cf “…ife must be something independent of organization, since it is able to execute the same functions with much diversified structure, and even in some instances with scarcely, any appearance of, organization at all.” An Enquiry (cited above) 48. See also Abernethy’s statement in his Introductory Lectures exhibiting some of Mr Hunter’s Opinions respecting Life and Diseases (1815), “…life does not depend on organization. Mr Hunter…was of this opinion.” Possibly Coleridge was thinking of Abernethy’s Physiological Lectures (1817) 85 where he used organization as revealed by comparative anatomy to classify animal creation, as did Hunter, Cuvier, and others, so that he stated that in form, though not in mind, “In the African, we perceive a link connecting the human form with the extremely diversified forms of the brute creation.”

νis υitæ: “life force”.

f93^v Pan harmonicon: A mechanical musical instrument imitating a whole orchestra, invented c 1800.

προτερον: For the same play on preposterous see CN III 3421 and n; on the fallacy, cf SM: LS (CC) 104 and n, also CM I under Böhme Works I 125–7.

(“Mind is the result of Structure”, says M^r Lawrence): See 4931 f96 and n; cf TL 34, 60 foll, and footnotes contraverting Lawrence passim, and Lect 12 P Lects (CC) 558– 583.

4519 27.72 Arians and Unitarians: I.e. disbelievers in the divinity of Christ

the former: I.e. Romanism.

the cause of Luther: See 4594, 4595, 4599, and CN III index under Luther. Coleridge felt that Romanism was nearer true belief because it had the forms and heritage of that belief; but, because it had overlaid these with its own traditions, it moved steadily away, while Lutheranism, despite its aberrations from the main line, had the tendency to move closer to the true faith because it continued actively seeking it.

4520 27.73 The entry, not in Coleridge’s hand, appears to be an attempt to teach him the capital and lower-case letters of the alphabet in German script.

The letters were written across the top of ff90−89^v, the open spread of the book reversed, the German script being carefully written underneath the corresponding letters.

Coleridge later wrote 4521 below, in avoidance of them.

4521 27.74 Yet One word more on Subtle Fluids: See 4518 and n

προτερον: For the same play on preposterous see CN III 3421 and n; on the fallacy, cf SM: LS (CC) 104 and n, also CM I under Böhme Works I 125–7.

(“Mind is the result of Structure”, says Mr Lawrence): See 4931 f96 and n; cf TL 34, 60 foll, and footnotes contraverting Lawrence passim, and Lect 12 P Lects (CC) 558– 583.

4519 27.72 Arians and Unitarians: I.e. disbelievers in the divinity of Christ

the former: I.e. Romanism.

the cause of Luther: See 4594, 4595, 4599, and CN III index under Luther. Coleridge felt that Romanism was nearer true belief because it had the forms and heritage of that belief; but, because it had overlaid these with its own traditions, it moved steadily away, while Lutheranism, despite its aberrations from the main line, had the tendency to move closer to the true faith because it continued actively seeking it.

4520 27.73 The entry, not in Coleridge’s hand, appears to be an attempt to teach him the capital and lower-case letters of the alphabet in German script.

The letters were written across the top of ff90−89^v, the open spread of the book reversed, the German script being carefully written underneath the corresponding letters.

Coleridge later wrote 4521 below, in avoidance of them.

4521 27.74 Yet One word more on Subtle Fluids: See 4518 and n.

(egöitas, Ichheit…): “something I-like (egoity, I-hood)” or Coleridge’s “selfness”.

I do not attribute Individuality…to Life as Life: Although life was described in TL 43, 67 as “the principle of individuation, or the power which unites a given all into a whole”, Coleridge was anxious to insist that “Life itself is not a thing—a self-subsistent hypostasis—but an act and process…” TL 94.

For Coleridge’s general objections to imponderable fluids, see TT 29 June 1833, where he also distinguished between matter and body. See also 4923.

uncertain rash hints in Jacob Behmen: It is uncertain of which passages Coleridge was thinking; possibly Chaps IX–X in The Three Principles\ or possibly this is a general recollection of Böhme’s many references to the eternal life-principle as fluid.

flammulæ errantes: “wandering flamelets”.

f92 the theme is, as old as the days of Job: Cf Job 16:18, where Job uses the term “blood” as equivalent to life.

apparently authorized by Moses: Deut 12:23.

Epoptæ: “Clear Seers”; see 4671, 4808 and nn. Coleridge uses the word of Böhme; see CM under Böhme Works I i 79–80 ed n5.

of the intercirculation Cf an endless perichoresis, or circular internal Generation in CN III 3575; see 5270 below, also CN III 4359 and n.

Gennēēsis…: the “generation/the being generated/genesis”. On the reciprocity of Father, Son, and the Spirit, see 5249 and n.

Apostacy and Anastasis: Of many references see 5081 and n.

tertium aliquid e Synthesi: “a third something out of the synthesis”.

υis systematis solaris: “power of the solar system”. f91^v Principium Individuationis: “Principle of Individuation”; see f92^v above.

nisus: “tendency/striving” as in Blumenbach’s nisus formativius/“Bildungstrieb”; see CN III 3744 and n; also below 4553 f47^v.

realize…thingify: Cf CN II 2784 and CN III 3587; Coleridge often made the point of the connexion between res “thing” and realize and also between res and reor “think”.

fieri microcosmus: “to become an epitome/microcosm”.

Stuffs…Stoffen: Because life is a process, not a thing, and assuming, as Coleridge said, Simile, Simili gaudet, plants in their living processes co-operate with the productive powers of matter, instead of absorbing elementary Stuffs or passive bodies. See 4566, 4579, 4646 and nn on vegetable processes.

eodem modo quo fluidum seminale…vehere habetur: “in the same way as a seminal fluid is held to enmesh and convey a seminal air”.

f91 involucrum: “outer covering”; in OED in only a botanical sense. Coleridge often used it for the cocoon of a chrysalis; see 4832, also CN III 4408, Chap XII BL (CC) I 242.

SIMILE SIMILI GAUDET…NISI INTER DIFFERENTIA: “Like rejoices in Like”, or “There is no action except of Likes upon Likes”; and “Whatever is similar is not the same”, or “There is no action except between different things”.

NECQUE IN CONTRARIUM…NON DIFFERENS, AGITUR: “There is no action upon a Contrary (heterogene) nor upon anything exactly the same”.

vectum…vehiculum: “the carried…the carrier”.

Δυvαμιν τήυ οχουμνην, και το οχημα: “the power carried and the carrier”.

quod ad fines, non intra fines est: “what is at the limits is not within the limits”.

f90^v menstruum: “solvent/fluid”.

+ and −ε in Water: “the positive and negative alliance in water”; see below 4577 f69^v.

Water=Hydrogen Oxygen: “Water is Hydrogen combined with Oxygen”.

Πρωτον μεν ‘Yδωρ, and παντα εκ του υδατος: “water was first” and “all things from water”; cf The Friend (CC) I 437 fn; Lect 2 P Lects (CC) ff19–21.

Heraclitic and Parmenidean πυρ υδατι ενοχουμενον, ειδες: “fire carried in water, moist water-like fire”. Coleridge’s Greek here is reminiscent of Thales, Empedocles, and a Heraclitus-like passage in Hippocrates. On the Heraclitean flux see CN III 4351 and n; on Parmenides see above 4518 f96^v. Here, as also in 4776, Coleridge alluded to the second less important part of Parmenides’s poem, where he described the “way” of opinion (as opposed to the “way” of truth) and gave a conventional Ionian-style cosmology.

The vital Principle…of John Hunter: In A Treatise on the Blood (1794) 77 Hunter presented life as “a living principle, some power”. Abernethy Enquiry (1814) 42 said, “The phaenomena of electricity and life correspond”, which Coleridge interpreted as a reduction of living process to a subtle, imponderable fluid; cf 4518 and n. f90 the latter: the former:: agens:: patiens: I.e. The vital fluid is to the vital principle as active to passive (Coleridge’s slip for the reverse); for his use of this form of equation see e.g. 4649, 4832, 5074, 5197.

Vis υiυax (or Vis υiυendi): “the vital power” (or “power of living”).

materiam υitæ: “matter of life”.

f89^v natura naturata: “nature natured/phenomenalized”. See CN III 4397 f50^v and n, also 4646, 4843, 5150 below.

1. ab intra…3. Organismus υitalis: “1. from within, 2. from without, 3. together within=1. Power of life, 2. Matter of life, 3. the vital organism”.

Natura gemina…et re-creatur: “twin Nature, which is made and makes, re-creates and is re-created”; cf 4854 below.

f89 ηλεκτρικο-πυροειδες: “electrico-fire-like”.

4522 27.75 Zeno’s demonstrations of the non-existence of Motion …: Tennemann refers to them (I 196) as “scharfsinnig”. Coleridge’s annotation of Tennemann at this point (I 197–201) is among his wittiest; see Lect 3 P Lects (CC) ff73–77 and n 32 where the Tennemann note is quoted in part. See also The Friend (CC) I 437. In her edition of The Friend (1850) I 88–9, SC records De Quincey’s report of Coleridge’s saying of Zeno “…the apparent absurdity in the Grecian problem arises thus,—because it assumes the infinite divisibility of space, but drops out of view the corresponding infinity of time”, and his comment: “There was a flash of lightning which illuminated a darkness that had existed for twenty-three centuries”. SC refers to the prior solutions of Aristotle and Leibnitz of the Zenonian paradox, adding “but the latter part, namely, the detection of the sophism of applying to an idea conditions only properly applicable to sensuous phaenomena, belongs to Mr. Coleridge himself’. It is this aspect of the problem Coleridge is trying to illuminate further here—at least the entry appears to be an expansion of the arguments against Tennemann cited above. And see 4797 on Zeno’s error in fluxions.

f88 Tartini’s third-sound: Giuseppe Tartini (1692–1770) in his work on Principles and Power of Harmony described in Chap I how two sounds being made by any musical instrument, and held for a time, a third sound will be heard. His observation was new and led to new methods of playing the violin.

cui objicitur seu Objectum est: “to which it is object-ed, or is object”.

In the last paragraph the reference to Color is more comprehensible in the light of 4929 f30, and 4855, 5290, 5446, 5447 and nn. Also CN II 3116 and n.

4523 27.76 The entry is another example of Coleridge’s interest in the grammatical form I am as a term for God, drawn from Ex 3:14, “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”. Cf e.g. 5243, 5244 and nn, and 4644 f25^v, 4671, 5413. See also Chap XII BL (CC) I 272 and fn.

causative but not transitive: Causative, rather than transitive because God is causa sui (4644 f25^v), i.e. the action does not literally pass over to another.

Fieri facio me ipsum: “I make myself to come into being”.

Facio me esse quod sum: “I make myself to be what I am”.

my Son: in the eternal: Coleridge used his variation of Ps 2:7, quoted in Acts 13:33 and Heb 1:5 and 5:5, as a means of indicating the relation of the Son to the Father. Since God is above time (see CN III 4418n), Coleridge interpreted this day as eternal present and added ever to reinforce the idea of timelessness, again as in 4644 f25^v. Thus he indicated that the I Am diversifies itself into the Son, who is God Alter et Idem, other and the same. See 4829 f56^v, 5249, 5256, 5297 and 5413.

νους ποιων: ποιων: “mind making/doing”.

—πραττων:—“doing/acting”

—πασχων:—“being acted upon”

from Aristotle: Tennemann states that in De anima III 4 and 5 Aristotle said that in the process of thinking, the mind is acted upon (πάσχειν) by the idea thought even as it creates (ποιεĩν) ideas by thinking. In the Metaphysics I I, VI I, XI I, and De Anima III 10 he distinguishes between mental activity which has an outward purpose (ποεĩν) and that which is its own purpose (πράττειν), Coleridge’s active transitive and active intransitive. Cf Tennemann III 63–64, 198–200.

4524 27.77 Idea Idearum: “Idea of Ideas”.

Principium Principiorum: “Principle of Principles”.

Erkenntniss [“knowledge”]=an asymptot…to the Idea: The application to philosophy of the simile from mathematics, of the straight line that approaches but never quite meets the curve, appears to be original with Coleridge; Farrar later (1860) used it of the inadequate relation of language to thought (OED under asymptot). The point being made about philosophy as a geometry of limitations, never arriving by ratiocination at absolutes, is recurrent in Coleridge’s work; see e.g. 4517 f97^v and n.

4525 27.78 Probably taken from Tennemann, a footnote at I 202, where the reference to Simplicius in Physica Aristot. p. 30 is as Coleridge has it, but with the addition “aus Eudemus Physica”. Tennemann’s Greek here, as elsewhere, is unaccented and has only rough breathings. Did Coleridge add the breathings and accents, or did he go back to Tennemann’s source or some other? (The quotation does not appear in Stanley or Brucker, the two other histories of philosophy he used.) See an interest in Simplicius in CN III 3418 and n.

Tr: “They say that Zeno used to say, that if someone would explain to him what the One is, he would explain the things that exist.”

On Zeno see 4522 and n.

4526 27.79 As to Forgery: Possibly this is a reference to some contemporary incident, controversy, or legislation about forgery. John Taylor Coleridge was interested in the legal aspects of forgery and annotated Blackstone on the subject; Blackstone noticed the increasing severity of the laws against it, a capital crime at this time.

The Greek pun depends on the fact that the word for king, sounds like an axe, an instrument not of mercy but of capital punishment; cf 4723 below.

4527 27.80 Again probably from Tennemann 1 164 quoting words put into the mouth of Xenophanes by Timon of Phlius; to anglicize the title, the fuller reference is to Sextus Empiricus’s Outline Sketches of Pyrrhonism 1 § 224. Coleridge’s Xenomanes is a slip in copying for Xenophanes. In Lect 3 P Lects (CC) ff70–72, 90 Coleridge referred to Xenophanes in enthusiastic terms. In his notes for that lecture (N 25 f138^v) he told himself “to end with the affecting lines of Xenophanes”, i.e. probably these lines.

Would that I too had attained a mind compacted of wisdom, Both ways casting my eyes; but the treacherous pathway deceived me. Old that I was and as yet unversed in the doubts of the sceptic For in whatever direction I turned my mind in its questing All was resolved into One and the Same: All ever-existing Into one selfsame nature returning shaped itself all ways.

Tr R.G.Bury Sextus Empiricus I (LCL 1933) 137.

4528 27.81 The entry is in pencil.

Presumably the date of the newspaper roughly dates the entry. The advertisement Coleridge quoted was headed: REMOVAL OF ST. JAMES’s HAYMARKET, something naturally to catch his attention; it went on to say that a meeting called to take steps to prevent the destruction, “to be held in the British-Coffee-house, TO-MORROW, the 24th Instant, WILL NOT TAKE PLACE”, i.e. it was not, as the typography suggested, an announcement of the end of the world.

4529 27.82 Later than 4528, i.e. probably later than 23 April 1819.

The anecdote is part of a tale in Johann Heinrich Jung Theorie der Geister-Kunde, in einer Natur- Vernunft- und Bibelmässigen Beantwortung der Frage: Was υon Ahnungen, Gesichten und Geistererscheinungen geglaubt und nicht geglaubt werden müsste (Nuremberg 1808) 270–1; Coleridge’s annotated copy is in the BM.

The parenthesis in the first sentence is his own. His condensation possibly leaves it unclear that it was Augustus who had been warned by his doctor against wine on account of an inflamed tooth, and Field-Marshal Grumbkow, having been ordered by Friedrich to see Augustus to the border, was cautioned to impose the order. Himself being drunk and having broken some ribs, Grumbkow failed in his duty to Augustus who, next morning before continuing his journey, “clad only in an open shirt and a short Polish fur coat”, gave his farewell messages for his friend Friedrich to Grumbkow. Shortly afterwards [the ghost of] Augustus appeared to the Field-Marshall in this very dress.

“My dear Grumbkow! I have just died at Warsaw.” Coleridge’s spelling of geöfneten is Jung’s, in this badly printed book. In the footnote a not was omitted: had [not] been.

4530 27.83 exponent of a circle…: Cf Phillips The New World of English Words (6th ed 1706) cited by OED under exponent: “Exponent of the Ratio or Proportion between two Numbers or Quantities, is the Quotient arising, when the Antecedent is divided by the Consequent. Thus 6 is the Exponent of the Ratio that 30 has to 5”. Had Coleridge been studying some mathematics? See also 4538, 4843, 4929, 4940 and nn for various uses of exponent. He applied the term to nonmathematical subjects in Omniana (1812) II 12: “…whatever is common to all languages, in all climates, at all times, and in all stages of civilization, must be the Exponent and Consequent of the common consciousness of man, as man”. OED cites this as the first use in the sense of “one who sets forth”. In AR 314– 15 C referred to “forms and exponents of Christ’s mediation in St Paul’s writings”, and to “metaphorical exponents”.

Exponential: After Bailey, the OED cites Coleridge 1809–10 Friend for this word in the (“rare”) sense of “the function of setting forth or exhibiting”; but the word did not appear in The Friend until the 1818 edition. See The Friend (CC) I 477.

4531 27.66 The entry was written with the notebook being used in the normal direction as at first (see 4580n) and was probably on the page before 4580 was written.

Thomas Waldron Hornbuckle went as a sizar to St John’s College, Cambridge shortly after WW had left, became Fellow (1799–1827) and Master in 1823, when Derwent Coleridge was an undergraduate there.

4532 27.68 Weekly dates; cf 4509. These run at right-angles on the gutter side of the page. Was Gillman’s regimen for opium control based on weekly amounts or weekly abstinences? Coleridge’s last public lecture had been given on 29 March (CN III 4504), so that possibly a firm regimen was now being attempted.

4533 27.69 Written on the inside back cover, at any date within the period of this notebook, for convenient reference? For a table of Coleridge’s signs and symbols see App A at the end of this volume. Cf CN III 4403.

X, Y, Z mean…Quantities or Degrees: The meaning here is apparently each fof] any not yet determined Quantities or Degrees.

4534 18.322 AP 249; EHC dated this entry 1811–12 with some that preceded it in N 18 (4081–4104) on what evidence is not clear. There appears to be a decided break in the use of N 18 at this point, this and the entries that follow here, all in ink, being written in the more even hand of the Highgate desk; the c May 1819 seems a reasonable date (see 4537) for them all up to 4538.

Calumny: A frequent topic with Coleridge, both personal and general; see The Friend (CC) II 22–3 fn, I 357.

Allophoby: Not in OED: “fear of another, others”, from “other”, “fear”.

hëautepithymy: Not in OED: “self-love”, from “oneself”, θυμία, “appetite, desire, lust”; see CN III 3293, 3746, 3777, 3873, 4335 and cf CN III 4007 on the subject in general.

Judges of his own life <exclusively> by his consciousness…in a lump: LS: SM (CC) 89 Coleridge dwelt on the social need for an “increased consciousness”. See e.g. CN III 3632, 3976f29. For an ethical application socially, see e.g. CN III 4067. was painfully aware in himself of the destructive potential of the less-than-fully conscious states, as e.g. in a letter of 1811 to Matilda Betham: “…the more I force away my attention from any inward distress, the worse it becomes after—& what I keep out of my mind or rather keep down in a state of under-consciousness, is sure to act meanwhile with its whole power of poison on my Body—” CL III 310. See also 5008 and n.

anthropic: The earliest use cited in OED is dated 1859: “of a human sort”.

4535 18.323 This entry was already f164 before 4536 was written around it.

Grazzini, alias, writes Pagolo IV: Antonio Francesco Grazzini (1503–1584) a Florentine dramatist and novelist, founded in 1540 the Accademia degli Umidi (later Accademia Fiorentina) in which his acad-emy name was Il Lasca (the mullet). In 1550 he founded the Accademia della Crusca, known for its philological research and its dictionary. Coleridge refers to Grazzini as an authority on the spelling Pagolo, a Sienese form used also by other Renaissance Tuscans, e.g. Benvenuto Cellini. It appeared in Grazzini’s introduction to La Prima et la Seconda Cena, Novelle di Anton Francesco Grazzini dello Il Lasca (London 1756 and 1793) xxiii where he referred to Pagolo III.

Crab—which the Egyptians made the symbol…: William Mure in A Dissertation on the Calendar and Zodiac of Ancient Egypt (Edinburgh 1832) 125–7 said that the sign of the summer solstice, on the Greek zodiac a crab, was “an unmeaning emblem as referred to egyptian mythology”; but in many ancient cults the sign of Cancer was associated with the moving constellations and planets. See D.W.Thompson Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1890) XXXIX iii 604–11. On Egyptian antiquities see also 4794 and 4839.

4536 18.324 Symbols: These are correlated with other lists of symbols in this volume and other places, in App A.Cf CN II 2383, 2384, III 4226, 4241, and a related discussion in III 3312. f164 the Mosaic Cosmogony: With the concise parallel here of the Mosaic account, cf CN III 4418, and also below 4554, 4555, 4556, 4558, 4929 and nn. The sequence of Coleridge’s argument, using polar logic, is a modified but fairly close parallel to Steffens’s philosophical cosmogony in his Grundzüge 26, 36–48, 41–8; see CN III 4223n. Steffens in Beyträge 262–3 also asserted that carbon and nitrogen constitute the metals; but for Coleridge’s reservations on the point see 5155n.

Coleridge’s argument, based on our present chemistry, was that integral bodies are generated by the polar interaction of gravitation and light (4929 f30) and generate by their interaction metallic bodies. See The Friend (CC) I 470 for a discussion of the chemical elements as symbols of powers.

f164^v Azote and Hydrogen…the same Element or Stuff diversely modified: Azote (Lavoisier’s name for what came to be called nitrogen), though distinct from hydrogen, is like it in being a gas that does not support life. The modification to which Coleridge referred must be conceived of as a modification of some intermediate direction on the Compass of Nature (SW), azote to the S, hydrogen to the W; in 4555 Coleridge associated azote, or nitrogen, with repulsion, hydrogen with dilation (as in 4556). For a further discussion of these powers, see CN III 4418, 4420 f20, and in this volume 4556 and nn. For Coleridge’s earlier use of the metaphor of “the Compass of Nature”, see CN III 4420 f20.

In 1818 the QJSLA v 170 began to refer to nitrogen as well as to azote. There had been prolonged debate among chemists about the chemical status of nitrogen, and Davy had speculated that hydrogen and nitrogen might be forms of the same species of matter. Cf T.H.Levere Affinity and Matter (Oxford 1971) 45–6.

the Arithmi of the Pythagoreans: See 5294, 5296, 5406 and nn. On the equating of these here with the “material numerations” of the Cabbalists (and also with the Ideas of Plato) see Lect 2 P Lects (CC) ff39–49 and notes, 60, 61 in which pertinent marginalia on Tennemann are quoted. See also On the Prometheus of Aeschylus: LR II 342–3.

On the Cabbala cf 5069 f24 and n.

X(¹=Hydrogen or Dilation (westerly modification of X).

X(²=Nitrogen or Repulsion (southerly modification of X).

Z (Carbon+X(²=Metals: Cf 5090, and CN III 4420 where Coleridge classifies the metals as Carbon-azotes; see also TL 69: “From the infusible, though evaporable, diamond to nitrogen itself, the metallic nature of which has long been suspected by chemists, though still under the mistaken notion of an oxyde, we trace a series of metals from the maximum of coherence to positive fluidity, in all ordinary temperatures, we mean”.

Metal+Water=Chrystals: See CN III 4433, 4454, 4455 on chrystallization.

cycles of Individuation…: With the remainder of the entry cf, on the definition of life as a “tendency to individuation”, TL passim (esp 42). One notes that Coleridge’s crucial four elements, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, were the four of greatest interest to organic chemistry, at this time a new and exciting field, providing a connexion between the sciences of matter—physics, chemistry, geology—and the biological sciences. For Coleridge chemistry thus had a pivotal position.

semina, organismi, ωα: “seeds”, “organisms”, “eggs”.

Aλη Θεια+ΩOXY(²=Man. Here the emphasis is on the meaning “divine breath”; see CN III 4319 f125 and n; and in this volume, 4870 ff60–61, 5256 and nn. I.e. the Breath of God + seeds (or organisms), counteraction (or contraction) under the predominance of Oxygen, Nitrogen=Man.

4537 18.325 “By the end of 1819 he [Morgan] was again under arrest”. Chambers 291. Morgan, possibly already ill by this May date, (he was about to have a stroke in Nov 1819) died in 1819–20. S Life and C IV 361, CL IV 977. On Coleridge’s relation with the Morgans see CN III 4108n and 4329n.

the night before: Meaning that he had dreamt the night before, i.e. Wed May 5th, about WW and SH, “[her] most beautiful breast uncovered”; see CN I 1718 and n.

4538 18.326 The entry appears to rise out of reflexions on and objections to Schelling’s Einleitung in 1818 and early 1819; see CN III 4397 f50^v, 4435n, 4449, 4450, 4453 and nn.

Abstraction as distinguished from Generalization was a subject of frequent interest— see e.g. The Friend (CC) I (493 fn) 520–1 and nn—and Schelling probably provoked the distinction here in the Einleitung cited above (5, 22, 27, 49). See also 4630, 4656, 4657, 4674, and nn.

J.H.Green, who in his Hunterian Oration, Mental Dynamics (1847), expounded many of C’s ideas, explained the terms Abstraction and Generalization neatly, as “indispensable aids, by noting the different in the like, and the like in the different, to the naming, sorting, and classing of all the materials, of which sensible and conscious experience is composed”. He added a footnote (14–15) framed in terms close to this entry: “Abstraction designates the process, by which, in contemplating any object, our thoughts are directed to some one part or property exclusively, withdrawing our attention from the rest. Generalization indicates the process, by which the mind occupies itself with like parts or properties in dissimilar objects, and in consequence of the likeness includes them in one genus or kind.” See also 5108 and n.

individuity: See also 5297 f22. Coleridge appears to use the word in the third sense given by OED, after Fuller and Hobbes, as an intenser unity or continuity of identity.

forma formans ab intra: “the form that forms from within”; cf CN II 2543 and n, 2550.

circumstantia: “a surrounding”; “circumstances”, “attribute”, “quality”.

f166 Exponent: On the use of this word in various contexts see 4530 and n.

Thus from the Plant she abstracts…and generalizing…she produces the Insect Race: The conception of life as a power, central for Coleridge, was developed in TL 35–7, 40, 42, 44, 49–58; cf 4951n, 5161; cf 4935 and n.

f166^v excitancy: OED for this word cites Coleridge, a note on Luther’s Table Talk in LR IV 25. With this whole passage cf TL 50–2.

one Activity…no Product without an Antecedent Power: What Coleridge took to be the neglect or blurring of this dynamic originating power and the consequent hylozoism, Spinozism, or pantheism, came to be his chief objection to Schelling, considerably modifying the enthusiasm expressed in Chap IX BL; see CN III 4445, 4449, 4450 and nn.

f167 the process itself, in which THE ONE reυeals its Being in two opposite …modes of Existence, I designate…Polarity: In contrast with Schelling’s concept of polarity as descriptive of the Absolute, Coleridge affirmed an Antecedent One, of which the polarity principle is an exponent and a generated product. See e.g. 5248 f37^v.

Thesis and Antithesis (in English, Position and Counterposition): Cf TL 51. Schelling used the Latin.

a Point producing itself into a Line: In 4513 the concept is referred to the ancients; cf Schelling Einleitung 32–3 and see also 4784, 4843 f118^v, 4974, which have much in common with this entry. Entry 4984 extends and applies the concept.

f168^v Thus Oxyde of Mercury produces…: Cf the illustration of hydrogen and oxygen producing water, in The Friend (CC) I 94fn.

4539 27.90 Charles Lamb’s poem, here in his own hand, first appeared in The Examiner for Sunday and Monday, 20, 21 June 1819. The entry would therefore not likely be later than that date. The last two lines were written on f72^v when it was blank, and where 4550 later had to avoid it; in fact the order in which entries were made in the notebook suggests that Lamb wrote it in before Coleridge went to Green’s on 8 June (see 4543 and 4550 and nn). Did he pay Coleridge a visit on the preceding Sunday, June 6th?

There are minor variations. In line 5, plough and spade are interchanged in the Examiner version. The version in L Works IV 59–60 shows variants in line 6 and 12 from both this MS and the Examiner version; they look like errors in transcription.

4540 27.31 20 years ago: 1800? Cf CN I 1842 and n.

This entry was quoted in the Introduction to Phil Lects (1949) 60–1, where in Lect XIII a similar attack on idealism and materialism was made. Broadly Coleridge objected to Berkeley’s “esse est percipi” and his disbelief in abstract ideas.

A fuller development of the objections to Berkeley, based specifically on a reading of A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge is to be found in 5276, 5280, 5283, and similar criticism of the confusion of sensation with perception is levelled also at Schelling and the Naturphilosophen, e.g. in 5286 and many other places.

it is assumed that Perception is but a sort of, or…derivative from, Sensation: As Berkeley seems to say in many places, e.g., Principles § 87: “Colour, figure, motion, extension and the like, considered only as so many sensations in the mind, are perfectly known, there being nothing in them which is not perceived”.

Is not sensibility just as mysterious, equally datum, haud intellectum: “given rather than understood”. Based on Berkeley’s Principles § 90 (or similar passages): “Again, the things perceived by sense may be termed eternal…in that they are not generated from within, by the mind itself, but imprinted by a spirit distinct from that which perceives them”.

f36 in genere: “in general”.

percipere: “to perceive”.

scire: “to know”.

qui percipit, percipit aliquid: “one who perceives perceives something”.

f37 the dim commencement of self-consciousness: Cf “Mem…how much lies below his own Consciousness” (CN I 1554); “depths of Being below and radicative of, all Consciousness” (CN I 6); “consciously, uncons[ciously], semi-consciously” (CN I 1575); “the mysterious gradations of consciousness” (CN III 3362); but references to degrees of consciousness are numerous. In 1806 Coleridge invented the word “subconsciousness” (CN II 2915). See also 4545 where the subject continued to tease him. See also 5167 and n. His concept of “no memory, ergo the act of Being not memorable” seems clearly to be a struggle to find a vocabulary that came a hundred years later.

4541 27.32 Coleridge appears to be constructing a system or diagram, tripartite at several levels, for the study of Forms of existence, mechanical, chemical, vegetable, animal, up to the Brain (f39) where Form sinks under Form and approaches to Formlessness. From f39^v onwards the systematizing is of human physiological elements which lead (f41) to Intellectual Production as the Product, which is here become a Genesis, or Gennēma, “a Birth/a Becoming” or “a Thing born/Offspring” (4521 f92 above). Up to this point although Coleridge appears to be constructing a base for his theory of life or organization of substances, preparatory perhaps to a section of the Op Max (MS) he was amalgamating the considerable literature produced by such contemporaries as Everard Home, Thomas Thomson, Charles Hatchett, William Brande, and in general much of the scientific work going on at the Royal Institution or appearing in the Transactions of the Royal Society. Much of this revolved around, for and against, John Hunter’s theory of life (TL 17–19). In all this Coleridge is on solid English earth. Beyond this point, f41 onwards, he soars into the Dimensionless and begins to use a language influenced by (even while in disagreement with them) the transcendental theories and vocabulary of Steffens and Oken.

Coleridge may also be remembering here Blumenbach’s lectures or his Institutiones physiologicae, both of which begin with the fluids. Coleridge referred in The Friend (CC) I 154, and in a letter of 1818, to the English translation by John Elliotson (2nd ed 1817). CL IV 886. It is clear that he also had his eye on Steffens Beyträge, on p 74 of which he wrote:

Herein I differ from Steffens, to whom I am deeply indebted for the leading Idea, in the mode and direction of these Actions. First, I more cautiously bear in mind a distinction taught by Steffens himself, or plainly implied and <yet> of which which he is almost every where losing sight— viz. between three great Vital Powers, the Zoo-dynamic Triad, Reproduction, Irritability and Sensibility; and the organic Systems in which this or that or the other is predominant. I carefully keep separate in my mind for instance, the glandulo-venous System from the Reproductivity, as its paramount Power, the Musculo-arterial from the Irritability, which is its Primate; and the Cerebro-nervous System from the Sensibility, as its highest and especial Power.

Cf 5425 and n.

Solid…properly Hollow: I.e. Solid as opposite to Hollow; see App A. Fest: “fixed/firm”.

Combine the Solid with the Fluid, and we have Systems: Possibly derived from Cuvier Comparative Anatomy tr William Ross (1802) 20–33; see CN III 4356 and n. J.H.Green’s lectures at the Royal College of Surgeons followed Cuvier, especially his Règne animal (see CN III 4357n), and in a vocabulary similar to that used by Coleridge in this entry.

f38 Chyle: See 4646 and n.

f38^v Adductive…Abductive: Adductive is in OED but not Abductive.

Abducent and adducent had long been used in physiological works.

Reproduction…Irritability…Sensibility: See 4929 f29^v and n; also CL VI 598–9.

f39 Extremes meet: See e.g. 4830, 5015, 5416 and 5402.

The Senses are outward Brains: Cf 5143 f15^v.

f40^v Ourin: “Urine”, from the Greek

ανυς: “anus”.

testicles & brain convolutes: In Gall and Spurzheim’s plates? See CN III 4355, CN IV 4763 and nn. Coleridge's more recent reading, Lectures on Anatomy by Everard Home, had one volume of magnificent and detailed plates; see 4580 f71 and 4646 and nn.

supinduction: Superinduction?

f41 Length, Breadth, Depth: Standard symbols for the three stages/levels of powers in Schelling's Naturphilosophie; see e.g. Zeitschrift für spekulativ Physik I (1800) Pt i 112– 24 and Pt ii 4–16.

f41^v Mathesis: “Learning”, or as here “Mathematics”, transliterated from the Greek; cf below, f42 Mathesis or Perception.

9 is no less real…than I: See 4555 f49, 4625 f27.

a true×of 8: A true multiplying of eight; for Coleridge’s symbols see App A.

the Soul may be disembodied: See 5291 and n.

4542 27.33 On his regretted neglect of mathematics in school and university, see a note on Böhme 1 i 219 (in CM I) quoted in CN II 2894n. The Platonic Superscription “Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here” quoted there, also below in 4672, and in this entry, is correct, not as in Brucker Historia critica philosophiæ (2nd ed 1767) I 641 or in Enfield’s abridgement; see The Watchman (CC) 34 and n. In LS (CC) 173 he translated without quoting it.

4543 27.34 The entry was written with a blunt or stubby pencil.

These places are on the road along which Coleridge travelled 8 June 1819 to visit Joseph Henry Green at St Lawrence, Essex; see CL IV 943.

From Runsells he would have gone, according to Cary’s New Itinerary (1819), to Snoreham, Steeple, and St Lawrence.

The notes were made on the way out, as indicated by Brookstreet (to the Left Weald Church on a Hill, woody), where it still is, on the left, and woody.

See 4547. Certain other entries in this N may well have been the product of this visit— 8–29 June—and perhaps also 4873 and others in N 21½; it is, e.g., tempting to date some of the nearby entries at this time, 4544 onwards. See 4566 and n, and the notebook tables for N 27, N 28 (June 1819).

4544 27.35 The distinction between attraction and astringency, as two kinds of attractive power one of which draws other things to itself, the other conserves or maintains itself, led Coleridge to question whether repulsion may be similarly conservative. In 4555 f48^v and 4556 where attraction and repulsion appear in a list of powers, this point was not made.

For further refinements, see in CM Coleridge’s note on Boehme Aurora: Works 1 i 62: “Attraction modified by Contraction is indeed Astringency, and the cause of Hardness (or relative Cohesion) Coherence, crystallization, and vegetative forms—likewise of colors—as Oxyds of the elementary Carbon…. Truly, therefore it ‘locketh’ likewise into Death, & ‘generates Death’. It is the Northern Power, that accumulates Land towards the N.E.” See another note also in CM on the same work, I i 78. But cf also CN III 4359.

4545 27.36 Expanding the discussion of memory in 4540?

Objective Perception×Objective Memory: In CN II 2384, CN III 4241, and 4403 Coleridge treated the×symbol here as the usual multiplication sign. In 5098 he noticed the inadequacy of the=sign, saying that for philosophical purposes three signs are needed for “equivalent to”, “one with”, and “the same as”. Here the×has at least two meanings: i.e. belongs to, “produces”, or “is produced by”—as on ƒ44^v where objective perception and memory are distinguished from subjective by being governed by (1) choice as opposed to necessity and (2) by conscious as opposed to natural (unconscious?) processes, and (3) conceptual units by association, nexus as opposed to primary fragmentary forceful nisus. See an application of or a step towards this theorizing in 4630.

At the same time, Coleridge was using the two diagonals in each× to indicate connexion between Objective or Subjective Memory and Subjective Perception and Objective Memory. He says at once that he has provided this device at the expense of the true meaning of the words.

f44 Objective Memory…Subjective Memory: Cf Swedenborg Heaven and Hell § 463: “Man has an external memory and an internal memory; an external memory which belongs to his natural man, and an internal memory which belongs to his spiritual man”. Tr J.R.Rendell (1937).

per antithesin: “by antithesis”.

f45 Objective Unity…the very opposite of true (i.e. Subjective) Unity: It is tempting to see here as in 4540 above an anticipation of later theories of the role of conscious and unconscious processes. Yet if Coleridge is with the future he is also with the Schoolmen on the significance of memory in considering the unity of experience, the soul; see e.g. CN I 973A.

indistinguishable Multeity: See CN III 4352n; also 4554, 4556 and n.

unitas phænomenή “phenomenal unity”, “unity of appearances”. In seeing here a possible reconciliation of Leibnitz and Kant does Coleridge imply that there was an inherent conflict although both accepted a twoworld concept, of noumena and phenomena, plurality and unity? Is he thinking of Leibnitz’s monadology as in some sort Spinozistic and pantheistic, or at least of this frequent charge against Leibnitz, and that the notion of subjective and objective concord in perception would make the Rhodian leap from his ontology to Kant’s critical idealism?

f45^v per antithesin requisitam: “by the required antithesis”.

Internal Vision in Clair Voyance—magnetique: See 4908 f68^v and n.

4546 27.84 On the futility of attempting to defend Christianity on purely literal and historical evidence see also e.g. 5158, and 5264 and nn below; in a letter to Blackwood 30 June 1819 Coleridge said he had “half a mind to write a book to be called Religion defended against its defenders” CL IV 944–5.

4547 27.86 In pencil. See 4543 and n about the journey to St Lawrence, Essex, and the Greens.

Moats Farm: On modern Ordnance Survey maps as in old title deeds, this is Mott’s Farm, about half a mile north east of St Lawrence, about a mile from the estuary of the River Blackwater, the arm of the Sea; the station (coastguard station?) is now replaced by a nuclear power station.

On Centrifugal Centripetal see 4929, 4555 f50^v and nn; on Fluid Firmamental see 4541 f37^v, again 4555, and 4558 and nn.

If Coleridge and Green were discussing these matters as they ate cherries on 9 and 10 June 1819, we have an approximate date for these entries.

4548 27.87 The entry is one among a number in which Coleridge is speculating on racial origins after reading Blumenbach, Kant, and others; see also 4668, 4866, and 4984.

Blumenbach set out to investigate variations in human physique, and whether these were produced by “Verartung” i.e. “degeneration”, (not in his use a pejorative term). In Ueber die natürlichen Verschiedenheiten im Menschengeschlechte (Leipzig 1798), Coleridge’s annotated copy of which is in the BM, Blumenbach predicated a process of stimulus and response in “the animal machine” (68) affected by climate, diet, way of life, training, and Bildungstrieb (73), a coinage Coleridge found useful, for the immanent impulse to self-determination. Although Coleridge does not appear to have annotated this work until 1828, he was clearly using it here. See CM I under Blumenbach; also CN III 3744 and n.

Generosus…Degener: Cf C&S (CC) 35 where “stirps generosa seu historica” (undegenerate or historic stock) is attributed to “that portion of the Semitic and Japetic races that had not degenerated”.

f81^v the Tents of Shem: Gen 9:27.

f81 Semitic Race forbidden to intermarry with the Descendants of Ham:

I.e. the Canaanites; Gen 24:3, 37; 38:2; 46:10. Cf 4856 below.

f80 geographical position of Blumenbach’s five Races: Blumenbach, assuming a separate act of creation for each species (Menschengeschlechte 89), put the Caucasian race in Europe (except for Finland), in West Asia to the River Obi, the Red Sea, and the Ganges, and in North Africa; the Mongolian in the remainder of Asia (except for Malaya and South India), in Finland, and among the Eskimos from the Bering Straits to Greenland; the Ethiopian in all of Africa but the north; and the Malayan in the South Seas, the Marianas, the Phillippines, Molucca, the Indies, and Malaya (ibid 205–8).

Kantian diagnostic of Race: Kant in “Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen”, not annotated in any of Coleridge’s three copies in the BM of Kant VS II 609–32. Assuming a single act of creation, Kant held that racial differentiation came from climatic conditioning and that the Caucasian was the original race from which four others descended.

f79^v germinal and Substantiating Idea of Blumenbach’s’. Blumenbach’s Menschengeschlechte was frankly (210–11) based on Kant, and expanded Kant’s views.

distinguish diversity from variety…from difference in Degree: Kant (VS II 609–10) argued that if all races were not of one genus no interbreeding among them would be possible.

bold assumption, that the Caucasian had no evolution: Kant (VS II 629) held that it was the original race; see f80 above. In a later lecture, “Bestimmung der Begriffes einer Menschen-race” (VS III 633–60), also unannotated, Kant revised his views singling out colour as the definitive factor.

f78 all the influences which Blumenbach supposes: Blumenbach Menschengeschlechte (91–122) thought interbreeding and other additional factors such as the amount of carbon in the blood, as well as climate and environment, were causes of degeneration and diversification.

4549 27.85 This entry was written after 4547 was on the page, and perhaps also after 4548, the end being fitted into a blank space at the foot of f82^v between the two. On Saturday 8 April 1820 Coleridge described a projected work with this title in a letter to Allsop, telling him that “some eighteen months ago” he had planned it and quoting this entry as part of “the first chapter”. CL V 35–6. The entry may be close to the date of the letter to Allsop, indeed it appears to have been transcribed, with minor alterations, for the letter. It is datable therefore between 10 June 1819 and 8 April 1820, probably nearer to the later date.

There is a MS fragment in the BM entitled “Weather-bound Travellers/Rough Sketch of the Introd. circumstances” (BM Add MSS 34,225 ff84–84^v). In the sketch, a stranded party of men and women, on continuing up a “Sea Loch in the Hebrides”, were to find that “the Loch loses itself in a perfect maze among Rocks”; the scene was to be described from “the Scotch Tour, Trossacs from the Wood Man’s Hut—the Caverns”. (CN I 1464, 1469, 1471). The sketch, full of enthusiasm for the landscape, continues with intentions to describe Edinburgh using a letter Coleridge wrote to RS in Sept 1803 (CL II 988–9).

This entry and the MS fragment (appearing in SWF) throw some light on Coleridge’s methods of tapping his early notebooks for later works.

Senachy: Or senachie/sennachie, a bard, a teller of tales and legends in the Scottish or Irish Highlands.

Alnaschar-like: The reference is to the Arabian fable told in The Spectator No. 535, of a worthless Persian glass-seller, Alnaschar, who acted out his day-dream of acquiring wealth and then, spurning his princess wife, kicked her with his foot.

4550 27.89 The chemistry of the first five paragraphs came from §§ 156–8 Brande Manual 104–5; see below 4560 and n.

f73 but mixed…dissolve Gold: Nitric acid mixed with muriatic (hydrochloric) acid turns yellow and dissolves gold. Coleridge, his eye on Steffens, would see this as a rotation through the compass of nature (see 4555 and n) from the South Pole (nitrogen) towards gold, or a contraction, and thus linked Brande and Steffens.

Aqua Regia: A mixture of concentrated hydrochloric acid and nitric acid that dissolves the “noble” metals gold and platinum.

Nitrogen is as Steffens first asserted: I.e. in Beyträge 40.

Anglicè conjectured: One of Coleridge’s objections to the Naturphilosophen was their aggressive dogmatism; see 4753n.

differently contracted: See Contraction and Dilation in 4555 and n.

Stoffs (as Steffens mistakenly supposes): In Geognostisch-geologische Aufsätze; see 4564 f57^v n, 4551 and n.

f72^v not 4 primary powers: I.e., the N S E and W of the Compass of Nature; see 4555 and n. Coleridge broke with Steffens at this point (see 4562 and n). He returned to the use of three powers—Dilation, Contraction, and Cohesion—and materia, principium essendi passiυum (“matter, the passive principle of being”). The combination of materia plus one or two or three of the primary powers, each of which could be positive or negative, produces one of the secondary powers or qualities. This is much more a part of the fabric of Schelling’s system than of Steffens’s, e.g. in Schelling Naturphilosophie 311–21. Coleridge’s marginal notes on Steffens Beyträge 169–74 are also pertinent, appearing in CM.

My tetragrammaton: See 4556 and 5346.

the Prothesis’. See above 4513 f5 and n.

Principium simpliciter essendi: “the Principle of simply being”, as opposed to the passive principle.

4551 27.88 The entry continues Coleridge’s attempts to explain the Creation story of Gen I in scientific terms.

gathering together of the Land…formation of the Sea: Gen 1:9–10. See 5119 and n.

close the actuation…necessary to all alike: I.e. the working of the Logos on the Chaos in a general way; see 4554 and n.

self-actuity: I.e. the power to activate itself. Actuity is not in OED.

the Love in the Distinction: I.e. the working of the Logos on the Chaos rendering the Multeity progressively more distinct; see 5249 and n.

the capability of ascent; Coleridge was perhaps thinking of the separation of land and sea as an early manifestation of the tendency to individuation, and further evidence of an ascending series. See TL 36–7 and 4553, 4580, 5144 f24^v and nn.

flat bladders: Steffens Grundzüge 69–70. Tr: “the activity on the part of the plants goes merely so far as assimilation of the mass…the roots are their stomach; the leaves [Blätter] however are their lungs.”

the process of vegetation of masses: Coleridge appears to be postulating, as Steffens did (Grundzüge 46), a stage in which earthy matter itself vegetates prior to the vegetable creation; this theory is opposed to the absurdities of the precipitation scheme (f75).

f75^v Indistinction with Unity: I.e. the Chaos; see 4554n.

the first Water, the second Earth—i.e. Metal: Or more clearly, the first [act gives form to] Water, the second [to] Earth see 4555 and n.

Analogies of Water & Metal, relatively…to Light: I.e. because both are masses which do not absorb Light, they provide evidence of a prelife stage in Creation; for Coleridge’s definition of Life as an absorption of Light as an inward entelechy, see 4677 and n.

Tentation…Apostacy. I.e. tempting Chaos out of its indistinctness into more ordered forms; see 4554 and n.

predominance of Light over Heat…marks…vegetable creation: See 4639 and n, 4855n.

Interuening of the 4^th day: Gen 1:14–19, the creation of sun, moon, and stars, between the creation of vegetation and animals.

f75 absurdities of the Precipitation Scheme: See 5103, 5119, and nn.

Essential difference between E[ast]=Metal…as in W[est]…and E[ast]×[identified with] W[est]: Steffens Grundzüge 47 associated oxygen with East, hydrogen with West in the polar scheme, as Coleridge did in 4555. Steffens described the E-W polarity as being under the power of Light, and as manifesting itself through electrical opposites (41). But in the constitution of the metals Steffens stressed the N-S axis although he invoked the whole quadruplicity in all substances (41, 47). Coleridge, however, was here stressing the E-W polarity in relation to the metals, but differing from Steffens and Schelling also in stressing the Essential difference between the polarity of the E-W axis supporting Light, and a centrality of E-W axis incorporating Light.

f74^v Punctum saliens: “outstanding point”.

kernel of the earth as Metallic: Steffens Geognostisch-geologische Aufsätze 228: Tr: “We have asserted that the kernel of the earth is metallic and that thus the different metals are the unalterable Supporters of the variable directions”.

Directions, O and H: O, i.e. negative electricity, East, and H positive electricity, West, on the Compass of Nature.

all the metals in the Mountains: Steffens ibid said that all the metals found in mountains are a partial reduction from older substances. To Schubert’s objection that according to this assumption metals must have been most prevalent in the oldest mountains, Steffens replied that this was by no means the case, as the granite mountains are the most impoverished in metals. Coleridge knew Schubert’s work; see CN III 4457 and n, and in this volume 4781n.

organic action of Granite: Coleridge substituted organic action for “Verwicklung des Individuallen” (development of individualization) in the Steffens page cited above. Steffens saw the principle of individuation as the soul, and as an opposite to mass as universality; Coleridge saw the life of the metals as process, a manifestation of the tendency to individuate; see 4559 and n. Steffens’s geology studied the mode of the selfdevelopment of vegetative and animalizing tendencies in nature. (Beyträge Pt I).

4552 27.37 Coleridge was visiting J.H.Green at this date, who presumably took in Bell’s Weekly Messenger.

As Coleridge says, the words of the first sentence between quotation marks, and those below from “It was therefore agreed…thro’ the Head”, are the words of the newspaper. His account of what lay between is much more melodramatic in his Germanundergraduate style than the newspaper’s prosaic story, which after the first sentence continues: “under the following extraordinary circumstances. This young man arrived in Vienna, accompanied by an intimate friend, and fell in love with a young lady, who also engaged the affections of his friend. A challenge ensued, but each felt a strong repugnance to take the life of the other. It was therefore agreed…”

an auf ewig dein: “an ever-thine”. In his bracketted phrases Coleridge appears to be correcting the newspaper translation.

4553 27.38 By means of many curious terms and conjunctions of terms here Coleridge was trying to illustrate the ascent of life.

Calorific pot[entiated] into υitific: Vitific, not in OED, has not entered into use: “life producing”.

Lucific: Used in 4604, “light-making”.

sensific: OED dates the first use 1822, “producing sensation”.

per nisum ascensivum: “by an ascending impulse”. On nisus see above 4521n.

Linea recta directione eluctans: “a line striving to keep a straight course”.

formæ in τò super formam adluctantes: “forms striving towards what is above form”.

co-adunation: Used by Coleridge in various contexts; CN in 3605 f118, 4158, 4176, 4186; see also The Friend (CC) I 90 (political and social); see also TL 44.

These are parallel tripartite systems; cf 4541 and n above.

1. Abdominal=Attraction: Matter is appropriated and potenziated into bodily organs.

2. Pectoral=Oscillation: In respiration, circulation of blood and air produces/generates heat which supports life.

3. Cerebral=Convergence divergent: Light focussed by the eyes is made sensible by the actions of the brain.

Thus the scheme takes us from matter to organic life (digestion) from physicochemical activity to vivifying processes, and from external stimuli to the growth of the senses. In each of the three systems a similar ascent is followed.

1. Ponderific, Chrystallific⁽², organific⁽³: From mere materiality to the first stage of individuation (chrystallific) to organic life.

2. Calorific, Caloric(², Zöìc(³: From physical activity, through the power of heat (even though a fluid is described) to life, which is organic and produces the sensation of heat. Zöic, pertaining to life, was to be increasingly discussed by Coleridge; see also 4617, 4862, 4880 and nn.

3. Lucific, lucid(², sensific (³: From potential light to the producing of the sensation of light.

Coleridge illustrates the various ascents by a series of generated geometric forms from the cone to the hyperbola which tends to infinity, just as life strives endlessly to ascend.

4554 27.39 Written on f48^v after the lower half of f48 preceding was left blank. The entry and following ones represent Coleridge’s return to his speculations on Gen I, as a scientifically accurate account of the Creation, begun in CN III 4418. To him the universe exists and has existed from the beginning in a noumenal-phenomenal dimension consisting of paired opposites—e.g. Good-Evil, Light-Darkness, AttractionRepulsion, etc.—with Will as the dynamic, whether cosmic or individual, which causes the noumenals to split and then to phenomenalize. The entire stasis exists in an additional dimension as well, the actual-potential, so that, for example, while Light may exist noumenally and phenomenalize itself in lights, there is implicit in this actuality the potential of Darkness.

Coleridge seems to assume that at one time, if time is to be used as a convenient tool, the basic state of the universe was that the Good existed in actuality, the Evil only in potential; see 5143 and n; also C&S (CC) 234; CL V 561. Long before the Creation and Fall recorded in Gen I—2, there was a cosmic inversion (metaphorized by the “War in Heaven” of Rev 12:7–9 and Isa 14:12–15) in which the Good fell back into potential being because the Evil had actualized itself through the apostate Will and then phenomenalized itself into the Chaos; see 5249 f40, 4843 and nn. God’s action at the Creation was the beginning of the process of re-actualizing the Good and rendering it into an order so that it could work itself out in manifestations, in relation to their paired opposites, that would lead to an eventual de-actualizing of Evil. The history of nature and the history of man to Coleridge are a record of that process, and the Bible a metaphoric record of that history. Hence he considers Gen I to be an accurate account of the first step. The later notebooks continue these speculations.

Multeity: That which the Chaos becomes after the power of Creation has begun to work. In Op Max (MS VCL SMS 29) Vol 1 f15, multeity and unity represent polar phases in “a state, in which the law of polarity has commenced”. The word was a favourite with Coleridge, suggesting a greater degree of indistinctness than multitude; see CN III 4352 and n.

actualized: I.e. the result of the first polar resolution from or within the Chaos, to be distinguished from the actualizing of evil which produced the Chaos.

eâ ipsâ actualitate: “by that very actuality”.

Word’s influence: For Coleridge’s view that the Word was the aspect of God which began the actualizing process see e.g. 5162, 5297.

cohesion…from attraction appropriative: I.e. as a thesis subsumptive from Attraction; see CN III 4223, 4225 and nn, and in this volume 4544, 4555, 4661 and nn. The genesis of cohesion is explained in Op Max (MS) I f70. In a marginal note on Schelling Ideen 366 Coleridge wrote, “I but imperfectly understand this Chapter on Cohesion”. Steffens Beyträge Pt I uses coherence (mechanical cohesion in a body) as a diagnostic and basis of classification of metals, bases, etc.

not mere Volatility but Repulsion: Repulsion being more clearly an active power.

I am wrong: i.e. in using the term Volatility instead of Repulsion—in 4555 f49. Possibly this entry should be read as a footnote to 4555.

4555 27.40 It is essential to understand that the basic Characters or symbols are used in a systematic and orderly way by Coleridge, to represent:

(a) chemical elements, e.g. carbon/, nitrogen hydrogen~etc, oxygen….or

(b) (cosmic) powers, e.g. attraction/, repulsion and~dilation, ····contraction. Or sometimes for products of powers. Or

(c) points on the Compass of Nature, e.g./North, South,…. East~West.

For other symbols see App A.

Dialogues de finibus et methodo Philosophiæ: “Dialogues on the ends and methods of Philosophy”; the Thursday evening conversations? See the letter to Allsop [30 Mar 1820] CL V 28.

This entry is a key document for the understanding of Coleridge’s theory of matter, and closely parallels CN III 4226, an entry of [1814–15], In this later note Coleridge left out the Ideal, cosmical, potential, vital, and organic sections, so that what we have is a very complete development of the chemical. In 4226 (N 18), he used the N-S E-W notation of Steffens Grundzüge 40–8 41–42, but in N 27 he developed his own symbols and greatly expanded his ideas. Coleridge’s use of chemical substances as symbols of powers in the Compass of Nature is closely based on Steffens Grundzüge 40–8.

Carbon=Attraction.−Magnetism. North Ideally…: I.e. Carbon, in the Compass of Nature, is Attraction, negative Magnetism, and ideal North. See CN III 4223: “The ideal Product will unite the Strongest Compulsion (of all actions under one, and vice versa) with the greatest freedom/of each particular action.” The ideal power lies in a perfect balance, like true North. Its physical manifestation, magnetism, deviates from true North under the influence of other forces. Its chemical manifestation, carbon, is represented by a fixed deviation at N by NE. In this paragraph Coleridge has collected all the terms relating to the NorthSouth axis, or the bipolar axis of magnetism; see 4929, and 4513 and nn. The reader can trace the development of this concept by referring to a letter to Tulk Sept 1817 (CL IV 775), where attraction and repulsion are attributed to gravitation, and magnetism is combined with electricity to form “chemism”. In another letter to Tulk dated 12 Jan I 818 (CL IV 808) Coleridge referred to the bipolar axis as the noun substantive of nature, the power of length and the line of magnetism.

In CN III 4226 (1814–15) the North-South axis is the line of being, in CN III 4414 (May 1818) it is gravitation, in CN III 4418 (Aug 1818) it is Mosaic darkness, and in CN III 4433 (Aug-Sep 1818) it is the carbon-azote axis. By the time Coleridge was writing this note and later 4929 [1822?] he had greatly refined his terminology. Each pole was given its own set of terms drawn from such diverse sources as German Naturphilosophie and Brande’s Manual of Chemistry, incorporating Davy’s “iodine”, “chlorine”, etc. The terms are up-to-date for 1819—striking at a time when chemical nomenclature was changing rapidly—and are here arranged in the following order: symbolic or ideal element; force; power; ideal direction; real direction and phenomenific; see CN in 4420 f18^v.

North ideally. N. by N.E. really: See CN III 4223 f86: “If so, the Ideal as anterior to the Real, and as Possibility, must ever appear to the Contemplator in Time as transcending the Real in Number—& that too exactly double—”. Cf Schelling Einleitung (1799) 3. Tr: “If it is the obligation of the Transcendental philosophy to subordinate the real to the ideal, it is by the same token the obligation of natural philosophy to explain the ideal by the real.”

By proceeding from the ideal to the real, Coleridge was writing in the transcendental mode rather than in the mode of natural philosophy. Cf CN III 4436 f28^v, where he wrote of God and the universe in the following terms: “Hence the Ideal-Real, the Real-Ideal, the Synthesis, or Indifference, and the Identity—reconstrues itself in the third, i.e. the Indifference or Synthesis”. He is building links between Schelling’s Transcendentalphilosophie and the Mosaic account, identifying Schelling’s Ideelle and Reelle with God and the universe; i.e. Ideelle is “God as producer” and Reelle is “what is produced”. In CN III 4449 Coleridge attributed all Schelling’s errors to a single error, “the making Nature absolute”, referring to the Einleitung. Here he may have been seeking to avoid this error by placing true North in the ideal, and real North as N. by N.E., or in the realm of nature. Cf Schelling Einleitung 42: Tr: “Both systems depart somewhat from the merely Ideal. Absolute synthesis is just as much merely Ideal as absolute analysis. The real occurs first in nature as a product, but nature, thought of as neither absolute involution nor absolute evolution, is the product…. The product is what is conceived of between both extremes.”

Coleridge has separated the two aspects of nature as product and production, and made nature a product (real) of the ideal. Hence the ideal-real opposition, perhaps as a reminder to himself and a talisman against the errors of pantheism. Thus he has also separated the ideal from the natural, or at least from nature. For Schelling the ideal is different from the real in that it is conscious and primitive, while the real is unconscious and derived. Coleridge conceived of this conscious primitive state as an attribute of the divine.

Following this, he put the chemical processes of nature into a context of outworkings of the ideal-real, noumenal-phenomenal dyads, which he worked up in CN III 4418.

Nitrogen=Repulsion, as the power of separative: I.e. this is the antithetic parallel of the preceding paragraph concerning Carbon, giving the bipolar aspect of nature under the ideal powers.

f48^v when coerced and restrained: Cohesion is the cause of the syntropy of/Carbon and Nitrogen (CN III 4223) or “the universal property without which matter could not be.” (CN III 4433). This footnote paragraph, although written on the facing folio, clearly relates to the discussion on bipolar axes. (It would have been more appropriately placed after “Centrality”.) Coleridge was wrestling with the relation of cohesion to the NS and E-W axes and the circumferential line. He was not so much concerned with a relation in propositional logic as with a relation in generative logic. He wrote clearly in CN III 4435 of cohesion subsuming attraction and repulsion. See also 4550 f72^v, “My tetragrammaton” In the letter to Tulk (Jan 1818) CL IV 807, he made cohesion one of the properties of North, in opposition to incoherence. In his Mosaic exegesis, CN III 4418, written probably in the same year, neither word appears. It is as if he were making an effort to get along without them. But in the fall of 1818, he returned in CN III 4433 to the idea of cohesion. By now he had dissociated cohesion from the direction North and the force of attraction. It became a universal property “over” the directions. This is a return to the ideas of CN III 4223 [1814–15]. Coherency is the power related to North (to be replaced by magnetism here in 4555) and incoherency is its opposite. This section should be read as a further attempt to develop the idea of cohesion as a general or universal property.

Cohesion: Coleridge, with his usual sensitivity to language, has seen that the English cohesion is more nearly equivalent than coherence to the German Kohaerenz. Cf Steffens Grundzüge 25: “so ist die Kohaerenz Ausdruck des Allgemeinen im Besondern”. Schelling used Cohäsionskraft in Einleitung 42; see CN III 4433.

Predominance: Cf e.g. in Grundzüge 45–7 Steffens’s ueberwiegend. Steffens had two relations in mind: unter der Potenz des, “under the power of’, and preponderance. In Steffens’s system the members of his quadruplicity enter into relations with one another in pairs, and the pairs are subject to further “predominance” on the part of the finite and the infinite. These predominated pairs generate the powers, which in turn exercise power over the pairs. Coleridge removed the concept of power from this level altogether. Cf Steffens Grundzüge 42: Tr: “Because the various, different relationships of the quadruplicity go into infinity, so there is also an infinite variety of different powers, in which the duplicity is there under the power of weight (magnetic polarity) and the duplicity under the power of light (electrical polarity) together with the identity of the relative opposites (as weight and light)”. It is significant that in CN III 4226 Coleridge did not use the notion of power in general (as in “under the power of”) and listed only particular powers. But here in f48^v, predominance produces power, i.e. a kind of restraint.

Attraction & Repulsion become powers: See above 4544. f49 Oxygen. Contraction.−Elect. East: The terms of the E-W bipolar hemispheric line (see 4929 f29).

Particularization: See CN III 3312. Steffens introduced the concept of the particular as das Besondern Grundzüge. Coleridge characteristically made it a process rather than a thing.

Universalization: The opposite process; drawn from Steffens’s word Allgemeinen, ibid.

Centrality, One of the five powers constitutive of nature. See 4558 f52^v, 5168 and nn.

4=1, and then 1+4=5: See 4558 below. The four which equal one unit, or totality, are Prothesis, Thesis and Antithesis, Synthesis, unified centrally in their indifference or dynamic reconciliation, and also circumferentially or as cardinal points in Coleridge’s Compass of Nature. This totality provides an additional concept of centrality over and above the temporality of the unit.

Pan: All, or Totality.

the 5^th Numen: The fifth power.

and 3^rd Deity. The idea of a reciprocal tension between paired opposites, which opposites are the essence of the creation process; see CN III 4418.

the offspring of the two Deities: The synthesis of the thetic-antithetic sides of the dyad; see 4558 f52^v.

/ and Attraction and Repulsion.

their numina…and~: Their subsumptive ideas Contraction and Dilation.

f49^v Caloric: See 5144 f23^v and n.

f50 Earths: As in 4929 f30^v, where Coleridge has a subdivision of the Combust or a by-product of combustion (synthesis of combustive and combustible), comprising substances like clay (acidulous earth) and lime (alkaloid earth). Cf CN III 4420. Alkalies there are identified with the combustible part of the triad and also with the N-S axis. It is perhaps for this reason that Coleridge considers including the metals under the Alkalies in CN III 4420 f18^v.

N.B.Earths and Alkalies are also really decomponible, but metals only ideally so.

metallëity: A word used frequently by Coleridge, e.g. in 4929. OED for the second use cites Coleridge TL 69. In CN III 4226 Metal is the chemical component of the centre, associated with Galvanism. In Steffens’s theory, Grundzüge 8, 9, the noble metals comprise the whole quadruplicity of the Compass of Nature, but in his general classification of metals, the N-S axis predominated (ibid 90). See also Beyträge 195, which Coleridge broadly followed here. In his note on it (170–3) he made gold the centre or point of indifference between North and South, water also being the centre, but representing the point of indifference between the superficies East and West. In CN III 4433 he placed gold in the centre. There is also a note on Steffens Geognostischgeologische Aufsätze 229–30, where Coleridge defined metallëity as “that of which all the metals are but modifications”. In CN III 4420 he made it clear that he had tied the metals to the North-South line, by classifying them as “Carbon-azotes”. But Coleridge meant this dynamically, and saw a difference between this view and that of Steffens. In a marginal note on Beyträge 262–3 he wrote: “It is an error therefore and an inconsistency in Steffens to speak of the Metals as composed of Carbon and Nitrogen—unless where these are taken as the names of the Power predominant in each. And even so, yet not as composed of them, but as constituted by them. S.T.C.”

Nicholson's Ch. Diet William Nicholson A Dictionary of Practical and Theoretical Chemistry (1808). The “initial letters inclosed” do not so appear in Nicholson’s earlier Dictionary of Chemistry (2 vols 1795).

f50^v Water…Fire…Air: Coleridge was apparently thinking of the relation of the scientific symbols to the Story of Creation in Gen I. See CN III 4418. The basic action of the Creation was the separation of Light from Darkness, which reciprocity ignifies, or caused Fire. The Second step is the separation of Air from Water.

“form”.

Fundirmental an interesting cancellation; cf 4541 f37^v.

“without form”; the reference of M…μ is apparently to the step in the Creation which separated the firmament from the waters, Gen 1:6, 7, but also seems to suggest the whole idea of setting up noumenal paired opposites and then creating forms to phenomenalize them as distinctions from the Chaos. See CN III 4418.

−μ=Fluid: See CN III 4418: “as the definition of a Fluid in the world of phenomena is a matter, the parts of which are not inter distinguishable by figure so here in a higher sense they are absolutely indistinguished and co-inherent, so that neither is there an outness or an in-ness neither a whole nor parts, but a mere Allness—all without each”.

M…Firmamental’. I.e. solid, as opposed to fluid; see e.g. 4868 f59^v, “The muscles and Arteries, the firmamental and the fluid”.

λ Logos: “the Word”, or power of God in rendering the Chaos into order, “the supporting Harmonies of Logic”; cf CN III 4418 and 4554.

πν: Greek πνευμα, “Spirit”. For Coleridge’s use of this to indicate the generic noumenal behind phenomenal forms see e.g. 5377.

‘Y Matter: From the Greek meaning “matter”.

ζ life: from the Greek, meaning “life”.

Σ Body: from the Greek meaning “body”.

σζ: organization of life and body together. The entire order of the list seems to follow that of Gen I, from the creation of light through the separation of air and water to the creation of life in plants, animals, and man, through the working of the Word on the Chaos to distinguish noumenals and set up their correspondent phenomenalizations.

f51 Oxygen as a Stuff or Element of the Laboratory: See CN III 3587 and The Friend (CC) I 470.

marks of Relation: See CN III 4403, and above 4533 and nn; for a full table of these characters see App A.

4556 27.41 The entry continues the scientific analysis of the Creation story in Gen I. See CN III 4418 and 4554 and 4555 above. It is more particularly descriptive of the action on the Chaos in the earliest steps of the Creation.

The difference: Coleridge is returning to an idea he mooted in 4544 and was working on in 4555 f48^v where he described Attraction and Repulsion as powers of N-S, the substantive powers, while Contraction and Dilation were the powers of E-W, the modifying powers. He now further differentiated them in the Creation. See CN in 4420 and above 4555 f48^v and n.

Attract.+Repul. and Contraction+Dilation: See 4544. These are dyads derivative from the Prothesis Light-Darkness, the ContractionDilation one following from the Attraction- Repulsion.

προπλασμα: “primal plasma”.

“Spirit”; see 4555 above and Gen 1:2, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”, i.e. preceding the

Indistinction + Multeity: See CN III 4352, 4429 and nn. 4545, 4554 above. It becomes an Etwas a mere “something”.

Ether: Probably in the older sense of a something which filled the heavens above the air (cf 4518 f95^v above), since the entry is focused on events prior to the separation of water and firmament.

f52 acts: A key word; primary Attraction and Repulsion are products of a will; they are acts. In order to function in the cosmos they must be reborn of a prior and inherent power, with its paired opposite perhaps, of cohesion-separation. When the Prothesis divided, it gave expression to these powers, as the diagram suggests. This division then gave rise to the subsumptive dyads deriving from it, or “fathered” them, and when the dyads were thus reborn, they were in this sense their own grandsons. See below.

We must therefore distinguish: See 4555 above; Coleridge distinguishes between two sets of powers, one primary and one secondary resulting from the interaction of the primary. In 4555 f48^v Cohesion was a product of the interaction of attraction and repulsion. Here, Cohesion in the form of Continuity served as the prothesis for the next set of polarities, continuity-discontinuity, the synthesis of which was the power of cohesion, i.e. continuity between discontinuous bodies. In this entry cohesion was not derived directly from Attraction and Repulsion but only produced by them in a nascent state. Attraction and repulsion constitute Cohesion, and reappear in it as polar powers (Contraction and Dilation) with the difference that Attraction and Repulsion are now powers, whereas, formerly they were acts.

the Eve of Creation: Gen 1:5, “And the evening and the morning were the first day”. Coleridge viewed this as the most basic step of Creation, the reappearance of the dyads as the second stage, or Generations of the first Morning.

4557 27.42 The entry continues from 4556 on the matter of how Cohesion inhered before the prothetic division and in the subsumptive theses-antitheses before it was “reborn” as a power in the separation of air from water and water from earth according to the Creation story of Gen I. The symbols here appear in 4555 and their mode of combination is explained in 4696, where Coleridge states that stands for the product of Contraction and Repulsion with Repulsion predominant, and thus also for the product of Attraction and Repulsion with Repulsion predominant. The entry should also be read in the light of 4559. This entry, like 4559 is part of an attempt to work from the cosmic to the phenomenific; see 4555 f50^v and n above. In the Op Max (MS) I ff64–9, Coleridge concluded this section of the anastatic process “by a distinct recapitulation and specification of the powers hitherto evolved in the order of their birth and epiphany”.

Paraphrased, the first sentence of the entry reads: The less the product of Repulsion- Attraction with Repulsion predominant is modified by Contraction (Oxygen), and the product of Attraction-Repulsion with Attraction predominant is modified by Dilation (Hydrogen), the more distant must they be from each other, so that attraction (Carbon) to Repulsion (Nitrogen) shall be as the Earth to the Air, for Contraction (Oxygen) counteracting Repulsion (Nitrogen) tends to assimilate it to (not identify it with) Carbon.

αλλο μεν, oυ δε τ’εναντιον γενος: “other, yet not the opposite kind”. The reasoning is that when Attraction-Repulsion is modified by Contraction, and Repulsion-Attraction by Dilation, there is less Cohesion in the dyads, so that as the process goes forward Attraction and Repulsion will be separated as powers, echoed in the phenomenalized separation of Earth and Air; for Contraction counteracting Repulsion tends to assimilate into Attraction, but not to identify with Attraction. Thus the disparateness of Contraction from one dyad, and Attraction from another gives two powers, dissimilar but not paired opposites of each other.

the whole Anastasis: I.e. the whole creation of the world as an entity; see CN III 4449 f29^v and n; also 4662.

4558 27.43 is 4=1: see 4555 f49 above. Centrality is produced by the intersections of the four directions (N, S, E, W) and is therefore a fifth.

the Pan: See 4555 f49 above. Cf CN III 4424 and n: “Polarity the law of all manifestation, the one universal pantoplast”, also 4436.

or 2 Divi with the two numina: Divi, “Deities”, numina, “divine powers”; see again 4555 f49 above.

co-involution: Another word coined by Coleridge to express the complex interaction of opposites; not in OED.

Gravity; see CN III 4418 ff14^v–15. The separation of Light from Darkness gives birth to Gravitation. In the system of Steffens Gravitation =Darkness.

f53 central>: Central light, or the Sun.

the 5^th day: In Gen 1:14–19 the creation of the sun is the fourth day. Coleridge recognized his error as he proceeded; see f53^v below.

the first separates the Light from the Darkness: see CN 4418 and 4556 above. Attraction and Repulsion make the first separation, in which Gravitation is nascent. Later Gravitation, reborn as a power (distinct from its idea) is paired with the centralization of Light and Darkness.

Vespertine Act: Evening Act. See 4556 above.

f53^v Spirit of Life…distinctions of the Life: Just as Coleridge viewed the creation of Light as first noumenal, in the first prothetic division, and later as centralized phenomenalization in the Sun on the fourth day, he seemed to view the action of the Word on the Chaos as producing generic or noumenal life before the individualizations in plant, animal, and man as phenomenal life.

the essential forms become central: I.e. the incorporations (placing into bodily forms) of life tend to centralise in the sense that these forms become unique individuals while at the same time following “each after its kind” in order. This to Coleridge was the essence of the entire Creation: the rendering of the Chaos into phenomenal order following from a noumenal order.

Comets : Veget :: Planets : Animal?: Do comets stand to vegetable life as planets do to animal? See 4555 and n.

Parabola versus the Ellipse: See 4633 and n; cf 5300 and n.

Eve of Creation=1: See 4556 and 4562 below. For his purposes Coleridge counted the pre-creational act of ordering the Chaos into Prothesis as a distinct day of Creation.

Again see CN III 4418 ff12–12^v.

all…all successively: The Pan above; see f52^v.

now Fluid, now Firmamental: See 4555 f50^v above, 4868 f53^v below; evidently Coleridge was thinking here in a temporal pattern, first of the “waters” as the Chaos (Gen 1:2) and later as a division of the Chaos into water and land (Gen 1:6–7).

There is also a clear reference to physiological discussion about the theory of life. Hunter had agreed that fluid blood had life that was independent of organization. Lawrence, Abernethy’s opponent (4518 ff94–93^v), insisted that life depended on organization, i.e. solidity. The debate, fluid vs solid, ran on through the 18th century into the 1820’s. Coleridge repeatedly referred to it, e.g. in 4541, 4724, 4814.

4559 27.44 an act of life anterior to or at least at the minimum of organic function…: Coleridge argued that life “from its utmost latency” (TL 42) operates in the inorganic world as “the tendency to individuation”. See 4521, 4677. Thus the individuation of fluids is an act of life—hence the life of the elements.

hydrogenation of azote: the transmutation of (nitrogen) into~ (hydrogen), nitrogen being the more primitive of the two; this form of individuation was a process not unlike the precipitation of rain; see below 4564.

Coleridge pointed out that the hydrogen that is produced by transmutation is not the pure power hydrogen, that is to say, universalisation, but the element, or Stoff, in which the power of hydrogen predominates. Transmutation can be seen as a modification of a predominance of power, corresponding to a change of direction in the Compass of Nature. Cf 5144 ff23–23^v.

4560 27.45 Coleridge was taking notes from William Thomas Brande Manual 306. Brande was at this time professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution, successor to Davy and associate of Faraday, and probably known to Coleridge personally. There are in the notebooks various disagreements with him, though Coleridge obviously read his Manual thoroughly, and soon after publication 10 June 1819.

Coleridge’s chemical entries are frequently taken from Brande, but appear to be directed by his questions arising from his reading of Steffens and the Bible in particular, about the relation of powers to the origins and development of the earth, the life on it, and its mineral and geological formations. Steffens classified the metals according to their coherence, which he co-related with their specific gravity.

Mercury as a liquid metal of high specific gravity is a metal in which the S power in the Compass of Nature predominates. Osmium is similarly the first member of a series of metals, a series which Coleridge believed Steffens had predicted in Beyträge 138: (tr) “But Gold and Quicksilver (if we consider Platinum as the last member of a hitherto unknown series, for which we shall give the reasons later) are also the first metals of both series of metals.” Coleridge’s long annotation in his copy concludes: “This must have been written before 1801, three or four years therefore before Vauquelin, Tennant, and Wollaston discovered the Osmium, Iridium, Rhodium and Palladium.”

Coleridge seems to be drawing an analogy between mercury and osmium, based on their specific gravities (see 4555), their resistance to acids, and the ease with which they oxidize. Cf Brande Manual 306: “§ 633. Phosphuret of Mercury may be formed by heating phosphorus with oxide of mercury. It is a sectile solid of a bluish black colour.”

This note follows logically 4559, because mercury is both a liquid and a metal, requiring therefore special analytical treatment; see CN III 4420 and n, and TL 69. See also 4561 below.

Osmium is also discussed in Brande Manual 307–8 § 640: “The leading characters of osmium are its insolubility in the acids, its ready solu-bility in potassa, the facility with which it is oxidized, the singular smell of its oxide, its great volatility, and the purple or blue colour produced in its solution by tincture of galls.”

4561 27.46 That the existence and development of life was governed by the copresence and relations of solids and fluids was a commonplace of physiology after Haller, clearly presented in Blumenbach Institutiones physiologicae (Göttingen 1798); see CN III 3744n, 4359 and n, also 4541n above.

Mercury was a natural starting point for such discussions, as Coleridge’s annotations on Boerhaave A New Method of Chemistry show. See CN III 4414 and CM. Brande in his Manual (294–307). §§ 612–39 discussed mercury.

fluid and firmamental: These constitute organic structure just as the three dimensions (length, breadth, and depth) constitute structure in general (see CL IV 769) and also symbolize (4541n) three levels of power. Mercury’s formation of spherical droplets, and its ready volatilization, illustrate the negation of magnetism i.e. the power of length and of attraction-repulsion (see 4555), and the easy triumph of dilation.

sulphuret and bisulphuret of Mercury: Brande Manual 304 §§ 627–8 described how these are obtained from Mercury.

the 4 powers: East, West, North, South, on the Compass of Nature (4555). Mercury, as both solid and fluid, is there given centrality, from which it takes on weight or specific gravity. Unlike Water it is not continuous, but controlled by attraction and repulsion, it dilates and becomes volatile.

f56 For Steffens (Beyträge passim), the development of the earth is a living process, and granite, containing quartz, mica, and feldspar is an important primary rock. Mica is lamellar, Brande Manual 940 § 920.

Granite. Quarz pure Silica: I.e. quartz is crystalline ibid 488–9 § 918 properly solid and also an early stage of life (TL 47) since it is a higher degree of individuation than the Figureless chrystallization. Feldspar is solid and relatively amorphous, hence the tertium aliquid of linear and globular, the third something produced by the union of opposites. Granite is described by Brande in §§ 917–23 of his Manual, based on the collection of geological specimens in the Royal Institution which Coleridge had seen. Coleridge was here relating Brande’s analytical description, 488–91 § 918, to his own system of symbols (4555).

the essential character of ◊ s [Acids]: There had been a controversy in the science journals from 1814 onwards, among Davy, Thenard, and Gay-Lussac about the nature of acidity, which Lavoisier had hypostasized.

genus generalius: “more general class”.

diverse from the M◊: I.e. solid acids.

4562 27.47 The entry continues the analysis of the Creation Story dealt with in 4554 to 4558.

I was perfectly right…genesis of the Solar system as the 5^th day. In 4558 f52^v.

tho’ mistaken in supposing that Moses had so named it: Gen 1:19; on Coleridge’s acceptance of Moses as the author of Genesis see CN III 4418 f12^v.

From legislative motives: The account of Creation in Gen 1 to 2:3 moves through six days to the institution of the Jewish Sabbath on the seventh, a Jewish institution which Coleridge evidently considered Moses thus to be validating. On Coleridge’s view that Moses’ motives were political, see 4872.

Evening & Morning commence with the Logos…second distinct operation: Coleridge interpreted Gen 1:1 as indicating a complete creational act before the Mosaic first day. Thus it could be counted as an extra day of Creation. See CN III 4418 and 4558.

According to Coleridge’s Christian reasoning, the creation of man would be on the seventh day and the Sabbath on the first day, i.e. Sunday.

organismus cosmicus: “organism of the universe”. Coleridge was evidently shifting to a broader application here, considering the days of Creation as symbolic of eras in the history of the world, a not unusual interpretation.

to mark the new creation: I.e. the Christian era; see 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15.

Christ has still sent his Spirit: As the Logos worked to order the Chaos and begin the redemptive process, so the Spirit in the new creation is at work; see 4556 above and John 14:26, 15:26, 27; Acts 2; and 9:31.

Spirit of Comfort and Prophecy: John 14:26 and Rev 19:10. f57 M+(−μ): firmament (solid)+ fluid from the genesis of the Expansion, □, &c i.e. ether (actualized space), air; see 4555 f50^v.

Paraphrased, the last sentence of the entry reads: “But though right in the main, yet the mistake of dividing the polarity of solidity and fluidity, from the genesis of the Expansion of ether (actualized space), Air, etc. (Gen 1:6, 7, 8) has led me out of my way and into a jungle”. The birth of form, missing in Gen 1:2, the succession of physical states (waterfluid, dry land-solid, firmamental; firmament, heaven, air-amorphic, expansive) is approached through the powers tested; see 4555. Hence the interest in 4561 in mercury, water, etc. as manifesting different relations of powers. Cf CN III 4325 and 4418: “I have never met with, nor has there ever suggested to my own mind, any tolerable solution of the 6^th, 7^th, and 8th verses of Genesis I—respecting the Firmament=Heaven, as a division of Waters”.

At this point Coleridge apparently abandoned the attempt to reconcile Steffens’s categories with Genesis. He seems to be separating himself from Steffens, who treated the development of + − as prior to and independent of the genesis of the elements.

4563 27.48 Malleable as differenced from ductile: Brande’s Manual 319 § 665 reads: “Gold is so malleable that it may be extended into leaves which do not exceed 1/280,000 of an inch in thickness. It is also very ductile”. See also CN III 4433.

smithie: Not in OED in this spelling, but perhaps a variant of smithy, suggesting here “forged as by a smith”. Coleridge looked for a more precise word than malleable, one less associated with the hammering of passive metal in a metalsmith’s shop—blacksmith, silversmith, etc.

He was continuing his consideration of the metals as powers, and here in the W-E axis (cf 4555 f50).

4564 27.49 Again Coleridge was reading Brande Manual and bringing English chemistry to bear on the Naturphilosophie of Steffens. He had moved from granite and geology (4561) through malleability (4563) to gold and oxidation.

per- or rather sur-meated: A nonce coinage, “super-meated”? Coleridge was refining on Brande’s statement that the electrical discharge passes through a fine wire of gold by suggesting its passage along the surface.

The purple powder, as Coleridge suspected, is not an oxide, but merely metallic gold finely divided. Brande said (Manual 319 § 665) it had been “considered as an oxide”.

Remember to ask M^r Hatchett: See also 4580 and n. Charles Hatchett was Brande’s teacher and father-in-law, a scientific member of the Committee of Management of the Royal Institution. Coleridge’s question about the weight of the purple powder was related to the modification of power brought about by electrical discharge.

f57^v Muriate of Gold is called by Brande Chloride of Gold Manual 320 § 667.

confounded…the Power or ideal Agent, with the particular Stuff in which it predominates—? Cf marginal note on Steffens Geognostisch-geologische Aufsätze 243:

If Steffens have made any mistake, or rather oversight, it is in confounding the ideal Direction with the particular form, Oxygen. Long before Sir H. Davy’s attempts to establish the independent existence of the Oxymuriatic as Chlorine, I had anticipated it a priori, tho’ whether as an East by North, or East by South, I could not determine, but I conjectured the former. And such, I doubt not, it is.

The note is long and explicit. See also CN III 4420.

The ci devant oxymuriatic Acid: Chlorine, so named by Davy, but previously regarded by Lavoisier as a compound of oxygen and a radical. See also Logic (CC) 416–7.

Nitrogen…an hydrate of the ideal Azote: I.e. retaining azote, the old word for nitrogen, for the “ideal”, by derivation, “lifeless”. See CN III 4226, 4433 and nn. See also in 4555 f49 Nitrogen…South ideally. South by SW really”, and “Hydrogen…West”—so real azotenitrogen involves a westerly modification of ideal nitrogen. (Here and throughout the chemical elements are symbols of powers as explained in The Friend (CC) I 470, a passage that serves to remind us that at this time the elements were still being discovered, mainly in the laboratories of the Royal Institution.)

Davy had raised similar questions in more practical terms, whether e.g. oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen might not all be electrical forms of water. T.H.Levere Affinity and Matter (Oxford 1971) 46. Thus in Coleridge’s dynamic chemistry, the W-E, electrical axis of power, corresponding to oxygen-hydrogen, might predominate over the S (ideal azote/nitrogen).

Suppositum philosophicum υel scientificum: “philosophic or scientific Basis”.

υis υitæ cosmicæ: “the cosmic life force”.

cosmozöic: Not in OED; cosmozöism, the theory that the cosmos has life, is attributed to Cudworth.

f58 It is at least a beautiful conception: In raising the question whether the chemical decomposition of water can be equivalent to transmutation, Coleridge appears to refer to J.A.de Luc’s view that water on evaporation changed into a different gas, which could again produce water; J.A.de Luc Idées sur la météorologie (2 vols 1786–7). See 5471n.

metastasis of the Terraqueous into the Atmospheric: I.e. evaporation/cloud.

the anametastasis of the Atmosphere to the Terraqueous: I.e. condensation/ rain.

as the puncta centralia for Hydrogen as the “centre points” for nitrogen.

inter et circum jacencies: “what is within and around”.

Diamond: Carbon; see 4565 and n.

Zöote or Zote: “living”

Röote (from fluo): “flowing” (from…“I flow”).

Potensis . . antipotens: Coined from Greek, meaning “winged/volatile”, and its opposite.

Eurrhöe…Antirrhöe: “Easy-flowing”, and the opposite.

Pezon: “Pedestrian/wingless”.

Peteinon, or Potēnon: “Winged”/“Volatile”.

4565 27.50 Fluorine or Pthore: Ampère discussed analogies between fluoric and muriatic gases, and suggested using pthore, the Greek for “destructive”, as the name. Davy wrote on the analogies between fluoric and muriatic gas, later inferring cautiously the possibility of fluorine as a separate principle. Brande Manual 211 § 358.

Fluorine corresponds to one of the intermediate powers in the Compass of Nature (cf CN III 4420) and the transition to Diamond and Carbon follows naturally, and thence from the Chrystal structures of Diamond and Quarz to other substances. Coleridge was continuing to seek natural validations for the possibility of essential internal characteristics expressible in a conceptual classification of powers. Cf 4753 and n.

f59 Chrystal…Diamond…Carbon: In 4751, possibly about this time, Coleridge returned to what had struck him very early as a joke, in Davy’s first chemistry lectures in the Royal Institution in 1802, the close kinship of diamonds and charcoal (CN I 1098 f28^v). Since then he had been reading Steffens Beyträge on the Compass of Nature; see 4555 and n.

The hardness of the Diamond makes it plainly N.E. of Quarz: Corresponding to the modification (4555) of Carbon (=Attraction…Fixity) by Oxygen, Contraction…East.

Rock Chrystal…: This and the six following paragraphs are based on Brande Manual 327–40 §§ 686–98. On f59^v Coleridge’s Fatstone is Fettstein in Brande.

f59^v what is an Acid: See 4561 and n.

the alliance of Con with At-traction: See 4929; also CN III 4414 f10, 4435 f26^v, 4449 f30, 4456. On Con- and At- in a non-chemical nonphysical context see Frag 60: PW II 1012.

f6o Suppose the Bases divided into two classes, N. and S..: Steffens in Beyträge 14 concluded that the earths are arranged in two opposed rows, siliceous and calcareous, corresponding to the North and South poles in the Compass of Nature. He went on to discuss the relations of earths to metals (178) and the status of the noble metals (138–40), all in the same N-S polarity.

some of the rarer Oxides: Brande Manual 336–40 §§ 693–8 discussed those Coleridge mentions here.

f61 Platinum—Gold: Steffens Beyträge 138 had proposed that platinum was the last member of a hitherto unknown series in which Coleridge in a marginal note on that passage, placed osmium. See 4560n.

4566 27.51 Brand[e] p. 345: Again the Manual, Chap VI “Of Vegetable Substances” §§ 703–4.

f61^v Gilbert’s Annals: Annalen der Physik ed 1799–1824 by L.W. Gilbert, contributions from which appeared frequently in Phil Trans and other learned English publications.

the younger Saussure: Nicolas Théodore de Saussure (1769–1845)

Gay de Lussac: Gay-Lussac (1778–1850), a leading French chemist of his day, was one of the editors of the Annales de Chimie which in III 170–4 (1816) published and edited a paper of Saussure in a way Saussure disapproved of; it was followed in the same volume by Gay-Lussac’s objections III 174–6.

“The cause of the motion: I.e. “of the sap” omitted by Coleridge.

Zoophobia: The first reference in OED is dated 1901, but not with this meaning: “fear of life”.

Misothelēsia: Not in OED: Coleridge’s coinage from the Greek, meaning “a hatred of the will”. See 4591 below.

f62 our Naturalists of the Anglo-Gallican or School regnant; Such as e.g. William Lawrence; see TL 34, 60 foll and fnn passim.

Equisetum: A genus of plants called horse or mare’s tail. f62^v υires formatrices: “formative powers”. The crux of Coleridge’s case here, and everywhere.

Stoffs: I.e. “materials”, the elements physically identifiable in the laboratory as opposed to ideal or philosophical terms.

Viridis and Carbojuge: Green and Coleridge.

The entry illustrates Coleridge’s constant concern with the life of nature, and nature’s production of chemical substances which, when identified by chemists, appear as educts. For the dynamic chemists’ distinction between products and educts, see 4579 and n. Of vegetable life and products, see TL 72.

all the dictations hitherto: Since c 1 April 1818? This appears to be the date of the earliest of them to Green. CL IV 847–8.

4567 27.52 For the Symbols see App A.

Oxygen as 48, 31…0, 40 of nitrogen: The entry discusses Brande Manual 362 § 725:

Another mode of converting starch into sugar was discovered by M.Kirchoff; it consists in boiling it with very dilute sulphuric acid. A pound of starch may be digested in six or eight pints of distilled water, rendered slightly acid by two or three drachms of sulphuric acid. The mixture should be simmered for a few days, fresh portions of water being occasionally added to compensate for the loss by evaporation. After this process the acid is saturated by a proper proportion of chalk, and the mixture filtered and evaporated to the consistence of syrup; its taste is sweet, and, by purification in the usual way, it affords crystallized sugar. M.M.de la Rive and Saussure have shewn that the contact of air is unnecessary in the above process; that no part of the acid is decomposed, no gas evolved, and that the sugar obtained exceeds by about one-tenth, the original weight of the starch. M. de Saussure, therefore, concludes that the conversion of starch into sugar depends upon the solidification of water, a conclusion strengthened by the following comparative analysis. (Thomson’s Annals, Vol. II. [a slip for VI])

See Table

This analysis of starch is somewhat at variance with that given by Gay Lussac; (709) indeed the small portion of nitrogen cannot be considered as an essential component.

Acid…Oxide? Cf 4929. Coleridge was looking at organic substances for processes and powers and their modification—hence superinduction of an oxide(?), an easterly power (4555).

f63 Solidification of Water inferred: In more conventional chemical language, the incorporation of the elements of water into the molecule of starch, forming (solid) sugar.

the disappearance of [nitrogen]…a transmutation of Carbon into [oxygen] Neither can I agree…: The analyses given by Brande are inconsistent with one another if one assumes that hydrogen, nitrogen, etc are qualitatively conserved through a series of chemical reactions. Thus the disappearances of nitrogen (present in the analysis Brande offers for starch, absent in that for starch sugar) was significant for Coleridge since he interpreted it as a modification of power, appearing at the level of phenomena as a transmutation—not permitted by or-thodox chemical theory. Hence Brande’s dismissal of the discrepancy, and the importance attached to it by Coleridge.

4568 27.53 Brande Manual 363–4 §§ 727–8:

Gluten is obtained from wheat-flour by forming it into a paste and washing it under a small stream of water. The starch is thus washed away, and a tough elastic substance remains, which is gluten…. When submitted to destructive distillation, it furnishes ammonia, a circumstance in which it resembles animal products.

…It is contained in the sap of the houseleek, of the cabbage, and of most of the cruciform plants.

Animality in vegetation: Nitrogen is present in significant amounts in many animal substances, but few vegetables have a large nitrogen content. Steffens (Beyträge passim) therefore considered nitrogen as the representative of animality in nature. Thus the production by distillation from vegetables of ammonia, which contains nitrogen, shows the presence in vegetables of animality. Cf TL 71–2.

4569 27.54 “Tannin, or the astringent principle, is contained in many vegetables”. Brande Manual 369, § 733. Above see 4544: Astringency=Attraction Conservative. Hence Tanning is a good illustration of N, tannin containing carbon, and Attraction being North ideally (4555).

Rusting is due to oxidation, hence an example of Contraction, East (4555).

4570 27.55 The entry draws heavily on Brande Manual 360—88 §§ 723–65.

ff63^v–64 N.b. The blue compound…colouring matters: See also 4929 f29 where Coleridge’s remark that “Oxydation is to Light what Colour is to Flame…and contemplated as bodies, 1. Oxygen (+Chlorine+Iodine) 2. The Metals+Hydrogen 3. Oxyds Acids, Alkalies, and Neutral Salts” gives the key to his concern with the relation of colour to chemistry, which he pursued through his next paragraph here; his vocabulary should be read in the light of 4555; see also, variously on colour, 5399 and n.

f64^v The great importance of [oxygen] to [carbon] exemplified in Naphtha: Naphtha, according to Brande, is compounded of carbon and hydrogen—but the alliance of oxygen to centrality, involution of each in each, means that all four powers are present—so oxygen and nitrogen must also be represented. nitrogen, or repulsion, manifests itself in naphtha through the latter’s volatility. Hence nitrogen, although not identified in analysis as a Stoff, is important as a power.

f65 “By distilling oxalate of lime…”: Brande Manual 387–8 § 765.

Such considerations of physical properties allied to chemical classification are connected with Coleridge’s reading of Steffens Beyträge 1–8, also Grundzüge 58.

4571 27.56 For the symbols see App A.

Gluten both in wheat and the juice of the Grape: “Vegetation+animalization/Body+Spirit, but Body itself is Matter+Spirit. The Bread & Wine unite=hyper spiritual Matter”.

On Gluten see Brande Manual quoted in 4568n, above. On gluten in grape juice Brande says, 399 §§ 788–9:

The principal substances held in solution in grape juice are, sugar, gum, gluten, and supertartrate of potassa. It easily ferments spontaneously at temperatures between 60° and 80°, and the phenomena it gives rise to closely resemble those of the work with yeast. After the operation, its specific gravity is much diminished, its flavour changed, and it has acquired intoxicating powers.

…If a mixture of one part of sugar, four or five of water, and a little yeast, be placed in a due temperature, it also soon begins to ferment, and gives rise to the same products as wort, or grape juice.

The Romanists…: I.e. the Roman doctrine of immediate transsubstantiation; for Coleridge’s view of the symbolic character of the Eucharist see 4831 ff58–9, 5126, 5161, and nn.

4572 27.57 All this information is in Brande Manual 394–5 § 780, but differently ordered; as in many other instances Coleridge read a section, selected what interested him, and condensed it in a sequence more logical to him than the original, possibly more from memory than from strict copying; this would perhaps account for his adding to the Quart of Ink 6 grains of corrosive sublimate where Brande recommended dissolving “in each pint of the ink about three grains”.

4573 27.58 To collate all the υeget[able] Acids: By using the figures given in Brande Manual 383–97 §§ 756–84, on Tartaric, Oxalic, Citric, Malic, Gallic, and Benzoic Acids; mentioned in a final paragraph are Moroxylic, Boletic, Zumic, and Kinic acids. The facts and quotations here are from these pages of Brande.

But what throws a doubt: Coleridge had long known of Davy’s controversy with the French about acidity. He had come to believe that there was no principle of alkalinity or acidity; it depended rather “upon peculiar combinations of matter, and not on any elementary principle”. D Works v 456. Hence his Query Acids=proper combination 0f 3 Elements, &c.

pure alcohol: Analysed in Brande Manual 412 § 796.

f66 But if we substitute Olefiant Gas: Coleridge is making the astute point that if one associates chemical properties (e.g. acidity) with particular combinations of elements, then the selection of different combinations within the molecule is crucial—and different selections (assuming different preformed parts) must yield different results. Coleridge’s dynamic view, however, of chemical combination (synthesis or indifference) means that the product of a reaction is as much a unit as the reactants. Thus hydrogen+oxygen become→water, and hydrogen, oxygen and water are all truly individuals. So Water=1.

commixture [distinguished from] intussusception: See CN III 4435 and n.

Daltonian Theory: For a characteristic statement see a letter of 1817 to Lord Liverpool (CL IV 760).

sic est or sic Deo placitum: “so it is or so it has pleased God”.

f66^v Olefiant Gas being chloric Ether. Brande 153 § 231 has taken Thomson’s statement that he gave the name chloric ether to “the compound formed by the union of chlorine and olefiant gas”, but has used it in such a way that he is open to misunderstanding through confusion of his pronouns.

This, however, sufficiently favors my notion: Brande’s use of pronouns led Coleridge to think that he had represented olefiant gas and chloric ether as one and the same. This would indeed support a transmutation of oxygen into chlorine, something inadmissible for the atomists but entirely reasonable for Coleridge, who regarded both as symbols of proximate powers.

Coleridge presumably interpreted the sequence in Brande Manual 416 § 805 as another transmutation of chlorine into oxygen, since he had Brande’s confusion between olefiant gas and chloric ether still in mind. f67 Hence The quid pro quo for I.e. chlorine for oxygen. In 4555 f49^v Coleridge used or for chlorine, presumably to distinguish between the Greek χ and the Roman×. Here and elsewhere he forgot this useful distinction and confused the symbols, but not the sense. Cf Brande Manual 416 §§ 805–6.

When the vapour of ether is passed through a red-hot tube, it is decomposed, and furnishes large quantity of carburetted hydrogen gas. Its analysis has been performed in various ways. M.Saussure, by detonating ethereal vapour with oxygen, and ascertaining the quantity of carbonic acid formed, and that of oxygen consumed, is led to consider the component parts of ether, as

See Table

806. By reverting to the composition of alcohol, the change effected upon it by the sulphuric acid in the process of etherification will be evident, as also the rationale of the production of olefiant gas (796). Alcohol consists of

Olefiant gas   100

Water     50

If we now subtract the whole of the water, which may be effected by a due proportion of sulphuric acid, we obtain olefiant gas only, but, if we only abstract half the water, we convert the alcohol into ether; not that either of these conversions are ever perfectly performed in any of our processes.

Oleum: Again from Brande Manual 417 § 808.

4574 27.59 the latest and best compendia of chemistry. In addition to the Brande Manual being used continuously in this notebook, Coleridge used and annotated (see 4873) Thomas Thomson A System of Chemistry (3rd ed 5 vols Edinburgh 1807) and (though not the latest) Herman Boerhaave A New Method of Chemistry…tr P.Shaw and E.Chambers (1727).

See also 4929 ff31–31^v and n for additional references.

my assertion, that the more initiative Ideas, the greater the impulse to experiment’. Controversy between the Ideas men and the experimenters was rife in the early days of modern chemistry, Coleridge’s position (and on occasion Davy’s) being a reconciliation of opposites, or rather a denial of real opposition; see e.g. The Friend (CC) I 481 on the relation between an idea and a central experiment, and I 494n on its “experimental Dynamic” instigated by John Hunter’s “Idea”.

the action of Water as Water: I.e. rather than as hydrogen+oxygen. See 4573 f65^v and n.

muriatic Acid: Hydrochloric acid, i.e. hydrogen & chlorine, which, Coleridge suggests, acting as a unit, made difficult the identification of chlorine as an element. Lavoisier in 1789 classified what we call chlorine as a compound and as late as 1813 Davy’s view of chlorine as elementary was contested. See 4564 f57^v and n.

4575 27.60 In pencil. Questions arising further from the treatment of Lampic Acid in Brande Manual 417–18 § 809:

Mr. Daniell has described many of the combinations of this acid, which he terms lampates, and has given some experiments upon its composition, whence he deduces its ultimate components, as follow:

See Table

When lampic acid is added to the solutions of silver, gold, platinum, mercury, and copper, and the mixture heated, the metals are thrown down in the metallic state.

On distilling the lampate of mercury, made by digesting the peroxide of mercury in the acid, Mr. Daniell obtained the concentrated or pure lampic acid, in the form of a very dense liquid, with an intensely suffocating odour.

f68^v in many cases I should dwell on the volume, or comparative space occupied under equal pressure and temperature: It is interesting that Avogadro’s hypothesis states that the number of molecules in a given volume of any gas is the same at equal temperature and pressure, but C is discussing reactions between solid and fluid. Brande gives proportions by weight. C feels that volume may be more relevant (volume being deducible from weight if specific gravity is known). Benjamin Collins Brodie in the 1860’s was to develop a chemical calculus involving operations on units of volume, partly in order to avoid any reliance on an atomic theory.

So in water the 15 grains of Hydrogen must fully counter-energize 85 of [oxygen] tho’ not counterpoise. Brande gives water H:O as 1:7½.

Dalton assumed that atoms were characterized by their weight, and combined in constant ratios of small whole numbers. Coleridge’s opposition to Dalton’s atomism would dispose him to reject a theory founded on weight only.

specific gravity seems [opposite] to energy: Specific gravity had for Coleridge the usual meaning; i.e. cf “The degree of relative heaviness characteristic of any kind or portion of matter; commonly expressed by the weight of a given volume of some substance taken as standard…. Since the weights of bodies are proportional to their masses, their specific gravities are in the same ration as their densities”. OED.

4576 27.61 In pencil.

dest. dist: destructive distillation. This fact is reported in Brande Manual 426 § 823 on Acetates.

4577 27.62 The source for this entry was Brande Manual 431–39 §§ 833–39.

So in water the 15 grains of Hydrogen must fully counter-energize 85 of [oxygen] tho’ not counterpoise. Brande gives water H:O as 1:7½.

Albumen, which in actu is fibrine: Brande § 834: “the serum of the blood …at a temperature of 160°,…becomes a form of yellowish white coagulum, resembling in appearance and properties the coagulated white of egg, and, as the principle to which this property is owing is the same in both substances, it has been called albumen” Ibid § 837: “When the coagulum of the blood is carefully washed under a small stream of water, the colouring matter is gradually dissolved, and washed out of it, and a white fibrous substance remains, which has been termed fibrina or coagulable lymph, but of which the chemical properties are there of albumen.”

firmamental principle of the animal…vegetable: I.e. the solid principle, containing nitrogen, the chemical representative of animality, while carbon (here with oxygen) is the representative of vegetation. See 4568n.

crassamentum: Brande § 833: “When blood is drawn from its vessels in the living animal, it soon concretes into a jelly-like mass, which afterwards gradually separates into a fluid serum, of a pale straw colour, & a coagulated crassamentum, or cruor, which is red”.

Brande’s experiments (Phil Trans 1812) led him “to regard the colouring matter of the blood as a distinct proximate principle of animal matter, perfectly independent of the presence of iron”. Berzelius, he admits, obtained different results having identified iron in the colouring matter. “The iron appears to be regarded by Berzelius, as contributing to the red colour of the blood”. Ibid § 838.

the philosopher sees the truth…oxide of Iron &c: Coleridge, who identified metals with the N-S axis of power in the Compass of Nature, and thus with chemical carbon-nitrogen, regarded the presence of carbon and nitrogen and iron in the colouring matter of the blood as no coincidence, but rather nascent metallization. Cf 4555 f50n, CN III 4420 and n, and their relation to his reading of Steffens, and especially 5290 on colour and the metallon.

See also 4825 f150 (11 July 1821), in which Coleridge discussed Gillman’s view of the absorbents: “Color is first induced when the fluids are contained—in other words, proper vascularity is a previous condition of color—and accordingly in the Venous Blood the Carbon, as Carbon, first manifests its existence.”

The magnetic action…boiling milk: Brande § 842: “The curd of milk has the leading properties of coagulate albumen, and like that principle is coagulable by alcohol and acids, and is also similarly affected by Voltaic eiectricity; heat slowly produces the same effect, and by boiling milk, the albumen separates in successive films.” But did not Coleridge mean “electric action” rather than magnetic? E.g. in 4659 he discussed heat in the W-E, electric, axis of powers.

Bile/in the liver from venous blood: § 847.

For the correlation of animal chemistry, physiology, and powers, see 4544 and n. There the liver is in the abdominal system, corresponding to reproduction, which is itself represented by magnetism, the N-S axis of power in the Compass of Nature. And/ carbon-nitrogen, are the corresponding chemical symbols.

auseinandering: “distinguishing from one another”, as in 5086 and n.

4578 27.63 For the symbols see 4577 and 4555 or App A. Coleridge was here considering a dynamic balance of powers and concluded that solution was an intermediate term between a mechanism and a chemical compound.

4579 27.64 Brande: Manual 439–40 § 847: “Thenard separated from bile a peculiar substance, which he had termed picromel; but the process by which he obtained it, is so complex, that I think it doubtful whether it be a product or an educt.” In using these terms Brande followed a statement of Steffens in Beyträge 38–40, which perhaps Coleridge remembered. Steffens made a distinction between pre-existing chemical entities believed not to be products but educts of plants.

Picromel: A bitter-sweet substance, described here by Brande.

ipso processu analytico artefactum: “manufactured by the very process of analysis”.

Dynamists, much more the Zöodynamists: Dynamists seek to explain all phenomena as an expression of some immanent energy, in opposition to atomists. Zoodynamists, though also adhering to this principle, see life arising from chemical processes, e.g. Steffens Grundzüge 61 (tr): “Every chemical process forms a specific individual life (a momentary identity of Gravity and Light)”. Coleridge differed in hypothesizing an hiatus between chemistry and life.

Cf educt vs product in SM: LS (CC) 29 and n, with Coleridge’s cor-rection of his own application of educt to the imagination, and his alteration to “Produce”.

4580 27.65 Using his own symbolic terms (4555), Coleridge was following closely Brande Manual 441–60 §§ 849–94, which deal with the chemistry of lymph and mucus, urine, calculi, skin, muscle, fat, cerebral substance, shell and bone.

πς of Serpents: “piss” of Serpents.

cholera Morbus of India: Coleridge had perhaps read an article on the subject by William Stuart Anderson in the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal XV (1819) 354–7 2.

urina ebria: “the urine of intoxication”.

f71 ζωη προυργανικος must ipsis terminis…ζ. Οργανιχη: “pre-organic life must by the very meaning of the words” be a simpler, less modified “life”—of course nearer to “the cosmic” or “organic life” of the planet.

cutis υera, rete mucosum: “the true skin, the mucous membrane”. Brande wrote (§ 871), “The skin of animals consists of an exterior albuminous covering, or cuticle, under which is a thin stratum of a peculiar substance, called by anatomists, rete mucosum, and which lies immediately upon the cutis, or true skin, of which the principal component is gelatine”.

Thenard’s Osmazome (Have I not somewhere a memorandum on this substance): As in 4634.

See Sir E. Home’s Paper: In § 886 Brande referred to Home’s discussion of Ambergris, “seen in the fatty matter…only found in the unhealthy…spermacetti whale”, citing Home’s Lectures on Comparative Anatomy I 470. (See 4646 f3^vn).

f71^v Shell and Bone: Hatchett admirable: Brande’s § 888 referred to two papers by Hatchett in Phil Trans 1799, 1800. On Hatchett’s superiority to Davy see The Friend (CC) I 471.

maxima: evoke M[inima?]

Higher up: I.e. in the scale of life. From this point onwards, Coleridge was observing the increase in the proportion of animal matter (containing nitrogen, phosphorus) over vegetable matter in shell and bone, with the ascent in the scale of life. Hatchett’s analyses provided the evidence. See also 4645 f2^v.

<turn to the last Leaf, onward to the right> I.e. to f99.

This probably means that most of the pages—ff72–98^v—if not all, were filled, i.e. some or all of entries 27.70 to 27.90 may have been already in the notebook. Yet the notebook was originally paged in full by Coleridge himself from f2 (p I) to f99 (p 199). But at 27.70 4517 the book was turned around and a new page numbering was begun 1–4 (f98^v being new p I, f97 new p 4). Though the renumbering stopped, the continuing use of the notebook was in the same direction, hence the foliation runs backwards in entries 27.70–90 (4517–4539). See CN III N 27 Gen N.

f99^v (σπασμα Spannung of −ζ: “spasm, tension, of minus life” i.e. disanimation, in barely alive teeth.

In this entry Coleridge was correlating life and individuation with chemical substances. For his elaboration of this scheme see TL 71–8.

4581 27.67 Parturition Divæ Mortis: “Childbearing by Goddess Death”.

St Chrysostom’s gloss on the text “having loosed the pangs of Death”: The text is Acts 2:24. Coleridge probably had this, not directly from Chrysostom’s Homiliæ in Acta Apostolorum, VI. I. but from John Hacket A Century of Sermons 553, “The First Sermon upon the RESURRECTION” discussing this text: “First St. Chrysostomes judgment upon it is, that when Christ came out of the Grave death itself was delivered from pain and anxiety…death knew it held him captive, whom it ought not to have seized upon, and therefore it suffered torments like a woman in travel, till it had given him up again.”

Diva Mors is Coleridge’s phrase and appears in neither Hacket nor Chrysostom in this context, although the clear implication of such personification is present in both. In Coleridge’s annotated copy of Hacket in the BM there is a marginal note on the passage: “Most noticeable! See the influence of the surrounding myriotheism in the dea Mors!” See 4625 and n below.

4582 28.1 In pencil.

Broxbourne and Waltham Cross are about sixteen miles from London in S.E. Herts, not far from Enfield. But local directories have provided no name to flesh out the W.P.Esq.

4583 28.2 On the inside front cover. The definition of the÷ sign was written in a different ink after the footnote to 4584 was on the page.

chemically combined with=×: This line is in pencil, the deletion and the×in ink.×,the usual symbol for multiplication, is here used for a dynamic process yielding a product, i.e. for chemical combination; cf, e.g., 4799 and 5239.

The entry is a description of the series of the earths in relation to the predominant power in each, so that silica) is shown as the earth in which the power of/(carbon) predominates, while inlime) (nitrogen) predominates: see 4555f49 and n.

Alumina and Magnesia are the earths corresponding to East and West in the Compass of Nature. They are both constituted, in polar fashion, around centrality, but with predominating powers in opposite directions from centrality —that is, towards the westerly and easterly powers. The earths are basic to a descriptive chemical classification of geological materials, in which silica and lime are particularly important for Werner and Steffens. Steffens’s geology is genetic, and Coleridge’s concluding sentence makes it clear that he is discussing the genetic relation of powers and earths; see also 4555 f49, 4653 and nn.

4584 28.3 The red pocket-book is N 27; it is no longer red, but brown except in the fold of the pencil holder; see CN III N 27 Gen N.

“chemico-philosophical”.

ταραξια κ’αταξiα: “confusion and disorder”.

the last 28 sides: I.e. ff78–92; see entries 4585–4587. These entries therefore are datable post 16 July 1819; before that date this notebook had been used intermittently, with some pages, ff66^v–67, 73^v–75 at least, left blank (later filled with entries 4810, 5146, 5147, 5186, CN V 28.83); the location of this entry does not necessarily mean that all pages up to the last 28 sides were already filled.

4585 28.86 Another attempt (see 4584 and N27 Gen N) to put order of a sort in a notebook by separating the Miscellanea, and therefore, possibly a fairly early entry in this notebook. It may originally have had a specific limited purpose related to N 27. See N 28 Gen Note.

vel cogitationum…: “whether of thoughts, leisure, or affairs”.

4586 28.100 This entry was on the page before 4587 was written there.

The historical Somerled was Lord of the Isles, a famous chief of the Hebrides who invaded Scotland, leading an army against the young Malcolm IV. He was defeated and slain in 1159. So Pennant (see 4783n) I 172, 236 and Chalmers (4780) I 625–8 record. Possibly he was nicknamed Thor, but where, or where mentioned in a link with a Haroldson, has not been discovered.

—Haroldson is elusive.

4587 28.99 The first sentence comes from an article by T.Edward Bowdich, “Account of the Climate, Natural Products, Arts, and Manufactures of the Kingdom of Ashantee and some of the Territories adjacent”: Phil Mag (July 1819) LIV 26–31. The name of the fruit and the information about De Marchais’s appear in a footnote. Coleridge was extracting a minute point out of a traveller’s general account of this part of Africa.

f91 D^r Joseph Reade…: From another article from the same number of Phil Mag 48– 58. The “Hibernian perplexity” of style is as Coleridge described it. Two of the briefest sentences are: “In this experiment the changes of the corneal image were accompanied by simultaneous changes in the mind; therefore that, and that alone, must have produced the sensation…There is no inverted image ever painted on the retina”.

Tilloch’s P.M.: Alexander Tilloch was the editor of Phil Mag. f91^v Fox, of Falmouth…Ibid 72, “Alloys of Platinum”; Coleridge here used his own chemical symbols for Tin and Platinum i.e. or “chlorine combined with the metals…Tin combined with Platinum”. See App A and 4555.

The French Chronometer: Ibid LIV 73–4, an article so entitled, describing a fifteenday automatic chronometer.

Allizeau (of Paris): Ibid 74, under the heading “Geometrical Recreation”, he described invention of a new kind of toy, consisting of pieces of wood, to teach geometrical problems and “the first principles of architecture. Price 14 francs (11s 8d).” Coleridge thought of buying one for James Gillman, the elder of the Gillman sons (1808–77) later Vicar of Holy Trinity, Lambeth, and President of the Prudential Life Insurance Co. Cf his remarks on “wooden diagrams” in LS (CC) 173.

The next paragraph appears ibid 73, under “Velocity of Sound”, and above it, the following paragraph on “Blasting Rocks”:

Colonel Warnaghen, of the Braxils, has made an important discovery; he has ascertained that the sawdust of wood, especially of woods of the less harder sort, triples the force of the powder employed in blowing up rocks when mixed with it in equal parts.

The Dust…~: Coleridge’s symbols in his scheme mean “contrary to dilation”.

f92 Thenartd’s new Liquid: Ibid 70–1; Coleridge turned back for a paragraph on “Oxygenated Water”: “It acts powerfully on oxide of silver: each drop let fall on it dry, causes an explosion, with an evolution of light if in a dark place”.

1.453: Specific gravity, Coleridge’s symbol; see App A.

Monge’s Pyroligneous Acid: Ibid 69–70, “Pyroligneous Acid”, a paragraph claiming the discovery of a miraculous food preservative. On p 58 “Observations on the Means of

Preserving Provisions and Goods. By Joseph MacSweeney, M.D.” suggests another process.

sine die: “indefinitely”.

4588 28.101 The proper unmodified Dochmius: I.e. the five-syllable foot, basically of the form -----, as Coleridge exemplified it. It was capable of at least nineteen modifications as used in Greek drama.

antipastus hypercatalecticus: I.e. an antipast (described among the metres in CN II 2224 f95, and CN III 4214, an iambus and a trochee) plus an extra syllable.

4589 28.37 The heading is Coleridge’s: “Composed by divine power; <nevertheless on this occasion> I have seen [him] non-composed by the power of wine.” The sonnet is Charles Lamb’s and is in his holograph. Entitled At Cambridge it was first published in The Examiner for Sunday 29 and Monday 30 Aug 1819, and first collected in Lamb’s Album Verses (1830) 34. There are minor differences in punctuation here from the Examiner and also from Album Verses.

Lamb possibly called on Coleridge and wrote this in the notebook on his return from Cambridge in mid-Aug 1819; in Oxford quadrangles he “walked gowned”, Hazlitt said. As early as Sept 1820 Hazlitt silently borrowed Lamb’s own phrase for himself. Table Talk No III “On the Conversation of Authors”: London Magazine (il 261) H Works XII 42.

4590 24.8 In AP 293. This entry is a postscript to an earlier one, CN II 3014, and is quoted there in the note.

2 Sept. 1819. Ramsgate’. The first of several autumnal visits to Ramsgate; see CL IV 946–7.

the above poem: Canzone XVIII of Dante’s Rime which he had transcribed on ƒƒ4−6 of this notebook; see CN II 3014n.

universal significance…in addition to the specific meaning: Cf “Poetry is essentially ideal”: Chap XVII BL (CC) II 45; and “the ideal consists in the happy balance of the generic with the individual. The former makes the character representative and symbolical, therefore instructive; because, mutatis mutandis, it is applicable to whole classes of men. The latter gives it living interest; for nothing lives or is real, but as definite and individual.” Chap XXIII BL (CC) II 214–15.

Mr Wade of Bristol: Josiah Wade; in addition to CN II 3014n, see CN III 4018n, 4193 and n, 4210n, 4218n.

4591 24.69 theletic: Not in OED; Jeremy Bentham’s Ontology (1813–21) is cited for thelematic, “pertaining to the will; voluntary”; see below, Thelematoid.

Producents: “Rare”, OED citing Coleridge for an adjectival use in AR (1861 ed of DC p 138); the word is not, however, in any edition published in Coleridge’s lifetime. OED cites also a substantive use in LR IV 52, a marginal note on Luther.

f35^v tota et omnis et nullo modo pars in non toto: “complete and whole and in no way a part in what is not a whole”.

On the human Will as necessarily part of a larger energy or dynamic; see e.g. 5243.

4592 24.3 Lackington’s Cat: Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor, and Jones’s General Catalogue of Books, in the Ancient and Modern Languages, and Various Classes of Literature For the Year 1819 lists as No 20571 the Bruining volume, “sewed, 2s. 6d. Groningæ. 1815.” There is no copy of this work on Mesmerism before Mesmer in the BM nor does the title appear in the Mesmer bibliography attached to the life of Mesmer by M.L.Goldsmith (1934). Did Coleridge search for it or notice it because he had seen a review of it in Archiv für den thierischen Magnetismus I (1817) 180–8? For Coleridge’s references to this publication see 4512 above, and 4809 below.

4593 29.13 The entry is compressed into a vertical space left beside 29.11 (CN III 4207), and it avoids 29.12 (CN III 4209) already on the page.

On 28 September 1819 Coleridge was back in highgate inquiring of his friends George Caldwell and Francis Wrangham to ask their advice and help for Derwent, “at what College should I enter him, with the best chance of exhibition or scholarship at present”. Someone advised St John’s [Cambridge] but “next to Jesus my own wishes point to Trinity”. CL IV 951. Coleridge had for some time been thinking of Cambridge for Derwent, and in July 1817 J.H.Frere had offered his influence (CL III 755); but the details became more specific in 1819. See also HC Letters (1936) 21,30 where Derwent is described as “indifferent as to Oxford or Cambridge” and it appears that before Jan 1820 Coleridge had been making “arrangements” for him. From the autumn of 1817 to Dec 1819 Derwent was tutor to the Hopwoods family. In May 1820 he was entered at St John’s, Cambridge. See also 4937n.

4594 21½.72 These notes on Luther’s Table Talk may be dated roughly 1819, from entries nearby (4606, 4609) and from the fact that Coleridge borrowed the Colloquia Mensalia from Lamb in 1819. The treatment of Luther in the philosophical lectures does not suggest a reading before that time.

The Devil (saith Luther)…: “Of the Divel’s Work” in Chap XXXV Colloquia Mensalia tr Henrie Bell (1652) 383. Coleridge in this entry used Lamb’s copy of this edition. He annotated this and it is now in the BM. In those notes he increased the noisiness of the Devil by adding strange knockings and noises, clattering, of old times and old houses, and grumbling and chattering.

S^t Austin writeth…: Colloquia (1652) 385 “Of the punishment of the Ungodlie”. Coleridge here transcribed the whole section.

Schelling’s Correspondent. MAGN[etiser].: In the Jahrbücher der Medicin als Wissenschaft ed A.F.Marcus and F.W.J.Schelling (see CN in 3764n) K.E.Schelling described correspondence with a magnetiser, Johann A.Schmidt of Vienna, a physician who provided him with reports of specific instances of “so-called visions” (II i 30–46).

The hint of Undina: Luther Colloquia 386 tells “How the Divel can deceiv people, and beget Children”, the story of a ghost-wife who returned and bore children to her noble lord but disappeared as suddenly as she came. The page reference establishes Coleridge’s use in these entries of the 1652 edition. Luther (387) refers also to the “Nix in the water…who begetteth Divels Children”.

Undina: Undine, the romance by F.H.K.de la Motte Fouqué, Coleridge read in German and in an English translation. George Soane’s translation (1818) reprinted in Philadelphia (1824) was given to Coleridge’s daughter, Sara, and may have been the one used by Coleridge also (BM C.132 c.9). He praised the original very highly but thought the translation inferior; see TT 31 May 1830 and n, also CL V III where in a letter of 20 Oct 1820 to Edward Copleston he referred to Luther’s account of the fable.

Cogitations of the Understanding: “How wee ought to carrie our selvs in time of Tribulation” Colloquia 388. Coleridge, pleased to find that Luther, like himself, was acutely aware of depressing conflict in motivation, wrote a marginal note on this passage; in CM under Luther.

f36^v Cerberus: “The Hellish-hound…in Greek is called Cerberus, in Hebrew, Scorphur” Colloquia 389.

“The Magistrate…”: Colloquia 390 Chap XXXVI cf Witchcraft § 2, also an annotated passage.

the natural good sense of Luther. The paragraph is largely based on Luther Colloquia 381, “That the Devil may be driven away by ridiculous contemning and jeering”.

Coleridge supplied shouting Texts at him and pelting him for Luther’s “uttering”, but substituted for Luther’s “when hee [the Devil] intended to Burthen my Conscience”, υexing my faith…Conscience. The most interesting variant from Luther at this point is Coleridge’s Devil saying I have recorded thy sins in my register for Luther’s statement to the Devil “I have Recorded my sins in thy Register”; what follows down to Sancte Satan appears to be Coleridge’s addition in a Lutheran mode.

f37^v Shavelings: Tonsured ecclesiastics.

Sancte Satan! ora pro me: Colloquia 394: “Holy Satan! Pray for me!”

Quia est…contemptum sui: Colloquia 381: “Because he is a proud Spirit, and cannot bear contempt of himself.”

But better it were…hid: Colloquia 389: “How wee ought to carrie our selvs in time of Tribulation”. Coleridge’s marginal notes here show a deep personal agreement with Luther on this passage, which he marked “Sublime!” and on the value of the Psalms as a form of prayer. “N.B.Expertus credo—S.T.C. 19 Aug. 1826. I have learnt to interpret for myself the imprecatory verses of the Psalmist of my inward & spiritual enemies, the old Adam, and all his corrupt menials—& thus I am no longer as I used to be, stopped or scandalized by such passages, as vindictive and anti-christian.”

f38 “We should have no dealing…bitterness”: Chap XXXVIII “Cf Luther’s Adversaries that wrote against him”: Colloquia 410.

Applied to Jeffrey & Hazlitt: See CN III 4323 and n, and CL IV 668–70 and nn; also CL V 475 for a later reference to their hostility.

Nullus et Nemo…sacco: Luther Chap XLIV “Of Sectaries and Seducers” Colloquia 432 used the phrase in attacking Erasmus: “No one and Nobody bite each other in a sack”. On 16 August 1819 “the battle of Peterloo” had taken place—the use of troops as well as constabulary to quell a reformist demonstration in St Peter’s Fields, Manchester. Orator Henry Hunt was arrested and imprisoned for over two years, and though John Watson does not seem to have been personally prominent, this would recall the earlier demonstration in 1816 at Spa Fields when the platform rivalry between Hunt and Watson became a public joke. Yet, owing to brainier men like Cobbett, the often misplaced energies of Hunt and Watson did not seriously block the movement for political reform. See also 4700.

Swill and Quaff: Coleridge’s adaptation of Luther’s “Grickle” and “Jeckle” Colloquia 291–2. Chap XL “Of the Papist’s Fasting”, closes with, “these poor fasting Brethren, they grew so pale and wan, that they were like to fierie Angels”, and Chap LXXIX “Of Drunkenness” quotes Tacitus on how the Germans would shamelessly “drink and swill” for a day at a time. Colloquia 527.

A Friar…: “on the latrine reading the Canon of the Hours—to whom the Devil saying, A ‘Monk ought not to read the Prime on the latrine’, the Friar answered

‘I purge my belly And worship almighty God: To you what is below To almighty God what is above.’ ”

4595 21½.73 Sydenham’s Principia: Thomas Sydenham’s Opera universa (Leyden 1726), Gillman’s copy, was in the Gillman SC (388); see also 5201 and n.

Thomas Sydenham (1624–89), perhaps the first really famous English physician, noted for his unorthodox cures, often infuriating to patients and professional colleagues, was strikingly modern in many of his observations and general principles. He contributed especially to the diagnosis and treatment of smallpox, hysteria, and gout, tried to classify diseases according to type, and was interested in multiple factors in illness. Coleridge undoubtedly saw him as a typical creative imagination in contrast to the rigid literalists of his own and many other professions.

4596 21½. 74 Answerers of Burke: Such as Thomas Paine Rights of Man; Being an answer to Mr Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution (1791), and James Mackintosh in Vindiciae Gallicae: Defence of the French Revolution and its English Admirers, against the Accusations of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke; both works made frequent criticism of the violence of Burke’s language.

Juno’s who conceive Mars at the very smell of a Flower. Ovid in Fasti 5. 235–59 foll tells how Mars was born to Juno without the assistance of her husband Jupiter, because Juno persuaded Flora, Queen of Flowers, to touch her bosom with a magic flower so that she conceived Mars, a retaliation against Jupiter for having his daughter Minerva without her aid.

4597 21½.75 AP 228–9 var. The entry expands the theme recurrent in Coleridge’s prose of truth cloathed…for the Vulgar; cf e.g. Lects 1795 (CC) 353–5; The Friend (CC) I 209–10; LS (CC) 148n.

4598 21¼.76 Printed in “Omniana 1809–16”: LR I 341. Probably a less impersonal judgement than might appear; cf a Vol v entry (9 Sept 1830) in N 46 f21, quoted in Coburn SC Imagination 13.

4599 21½.77 Of Antony, the Monk, and his Compeers: Luther (see above 4594 and n) described “Macarius Antonius and Benedictus …with their munckerie” in Chap XXIX “Of the Books of the Fathers of the Church” Colloquia (1652) 351, a passage Coleridge annotated; it is Satan that “falleth from the matter and goeth the wrong waie to the wood” 352.

f39^v The fable of the two goats comes from Chap LIII “Of Discord” 469 var. For the last sentence of this paragraph Luther has “Even so people should rather endure to bee trod with feet, then to fall at debate and discord one with another.”

Luther’s Excuse of Cursing: Based again on Colloquia 469, but more epigrammatic than Luther’s paragraph. The reference to Lessing could be to the broad moral of Nathan der Weise though this epigram has not been found there. Cf the same point made without reference to Luther or Lessing in Chap VII BL (CC): “man may perchance determine what is a heresy; but God only can know who is a heretic”. I 122.

Luther himself taught at last the true christian doctrine of the Sacrament: Chap LXXX, with the running head, “Luther’s last discourses” Colloquia 529. “In the Articles concerning the Trinitie, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Sacraments, wee must not look according to humane reason: for the judgment of God and man are divers things: but wee must think of his Word, which doth declare his Power and goodness; wee ought to commit the same unto God, hee will direct it well. Christus est spiritualiter in Sacramentis. Christ is spiritually in the Sacraments. But how, and after what manner, Hoc non est nostrûm perscutari, wee ought not search.”

Rem credimus: modum nescimus: “We know the fact; we do not know the manner.” Untraced. In an annotation on Donne, on LXXX Sermons (1640) 34 E Coleridge said “I have ever felt, and for many years thought that this…is but a poor evasion”.

Quote the passage respecting Copernicus, collate with Sir T. Brown’s: In Colloquia Chap LXX 503: “I am now advertised that a new Astrologer is risen, who presumeth to prove that the earth moveth and goeth about, non the Firmament the Sun, Moon, or the Stars, like as when one sitteth in a Coach or in a Ship and is moved, thinketh hee sitteth still and resteth, but the earth and trees go, run and move themselvs…. This foole will turn the whole Art of Astronomie upside-down, but the Scripture sheweth and teacheth him another Lesson, where Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, and not the earth.”

In his copy Coleridge wrote opposite this passage: “A similar but still more intolerant and contemptuous anathema of the Copernican System in Sir T.Brown, almost two centuries later than Luther”.

In Pseudodoxia Epidemica Bk VII Chap XVIII, in the edition Coleridge used earlier (CN III 4366 and n), Browne refers to the anecdote of “Aeschilus, whose balde pate was mistaken for a rock, and so was brained by a Tortoise which an Eagle let fall upon it. Certainly it was a very great mistake in the perspicacity of that Animall, and some men critically disposed would from hence confute the opinion of Copernicus; never conceiving how the motion of the earth below, should not wave him from a knock perpendicularly directed from a body in the ayre above”. The printed marginal gloss on this reads: “An argument or instance against the motion of the earth”. Coleridge evidently did not collate these passages, if these are the ones to which he refers. Earlier (in Bk VI Chap V) Browne is less negative about “the hypothesis of Copernicus, affirming the Earth to move, and the Sun to stand still…”; he is at least noncommittal. Pseudodoxia (1659) 250–1.

4600 21½.78 Again from Luther’s Colloquia Chap XIII 223 var; Coleridge writes penalty for the “pain and punishment” of his edition.

4601 21½.79 Tommy, Jacky…: An entry possibly prompted by Luther’s Colloquia where Luther refers (169) to Adam as “the Divel’s instrument, yea, his Jakes”.

4602 21½.80 Cantilena: In Latin, an often-repeated song or refrain.

sanies: Thin putrous serum and blood.

supernatant: See CN III 3569 and n.

On the main issue here one recalls disagreements with WW, e.g., Coleridge’s avowed “scepticism concerning the desirable influences of low and rustic life in and for itself’, and that where the necessary prerequisites to it are wanting, “the mind contracts and hardens by want of stimulants, and the man becomes selfish, sensual, gross, and hardhearted”. Chap XVII BL (CC) II 45.

4603 21½.81 On Eichhorn see CN III 4307n. Although Coleridge had already annotated much of Eichhorn by 28 Mar 1819 (see the letter to DC CL IV 929) he returned to these books as reference works throughout the 1820’s for many problems of biblical origins, composition, and authenticity.

serviceable Note ending p. 600: The note is written in Eichhorn NT (Coleridge’s own copy designated in CM Copy A) I 597–600, “Glaubwürdigkeit des Lukas”. Brushing aside the patristic theory that Luke’s gospel may be validated by Paul’s reference to it in Rom 2:16, Eichhorn argued that its validity must be judged on the basis of Luke’s sources and Luke’s discrimination among them. Coleridge’s note reads:

Even Eichhorn, the best of the historical Critics among Theologians, presumes too much on the truth of the notion, that the biography of Jesus formed the whole or principal part of the Apostolical Preaching—too little on the share which the divine Philosophy, the revealed Religion itself had—the everlasting Gospel that was from the Beginning, the Christ that was even in the Wilderness. St Paul scarce ever refers to historical facts but in confirmation or exemplification of some doctrine, as in his account of the Lord’s Supper and the Resurrection—no where, I think, to any particular miracle. They who had received this doctrine, did not need them—they believed them a fortiori. Those who refused the doctrines would either deny the facts or account for them according to the general fancies of their age. ex. gr. of magic or of connate δυναμείς [powers] as those of our Greatrakes or Greatorix and others.

res ipsissimëity: “the thing-itself-ness”.

f40^v Aristean Fable of the 70 Translators: Eichhorn AT I 313–14, summarized as “Fabel” the Letter of Aristeas (c 200 B.C.–A.D. 30), which told the story of the (unmiraculous) translation of the Pentateuch by 72 translators summoned to Alexandria by Ptolemy Philadelphus. Eichhorn goes on to give a later version of the story, from Justin Martyr, in which the translators, although locked up in separate cells, produced 72 identical Greek versions of the OT.Later the number became 70. Hence the title Septuagint for the Greek OT. Cf 4869 and n.

convey their opinion, in a circle: I.e. because the Scriptures were infallible, the statements therein that they were inspired (e.g. 2 Tim 3:16) were inspired; see 4615, 5371 f5^v and nn.

f41 defects charged by Worldlings…: E.g. Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason. In a marginal note on Eichhorn NT I 634 Coleridge objected to similar views; cf also 4706 and n.

Gnomαι: “Proverbs”.

gnomonic Poems of the Greeks & Romans: E.g. of Theognis, Varro and Horace.

4604 21½.82 The first sentence, f4I, may have been the last written. If so, he went back to a small space on the leaf preceding the entry proper, beginning on f41^v. This looks like the most reasonable interpretation of the MS.

f41^v The Egyptian Naturalists . . . believed: An illustration frequently used by Coleridge; see e.g. CN III 4418 f11.

rudis indigestaque moles: Ovid Metamorphoses 1.7: “a rough unordered mass of things”. Tr F.J.Miller (LCL 2 vols 1916) I 3.

υis plastica: “plastic force”; see The Friend (CC) I 493 fn. See also plastic life (5150), plastic appetence (5235), plastic Instinct (5177), plastic Moulds (4746).

Lucific Word Fiat: See CN III 4418 ff14^v–15.

plusquam-Sampsonian’. “more than Samsonian” (Coleridge regularly writes Sampson).

Death, which is but the Life of a lower order of Natural Power: Cf CN III 4434 and n.

f42 the co- if not the pre-existence of the Heart: Cf 5171 and n on evidence for a heart, however rudimentary, even in lower forms of life.

in reos…insolentes: “against those guilty of high treason against her, rebels, poisoners, heretics, the insolent”.

Carnifices: “Executioners”.

f42^v υita non υita…alieno: “a life that is no life, given by another’s will”. On galvanism see 4639 and n.

the Tadpole in its Metamorphosis: QJSLA XIX (July 1825) reviewed a recent work by Sir Everard Home Observations on the Changes the Ovum of the Frog undergoes during the Formation of the Tadpole. The reviewer described (295) how, according to Home, the brain and spinal marrow in cold-blooded as well as hot-blooded animals, are first discerned, then the heart and other viscera. Coleridge may have enjoyed noticing this description as supporting vitalist theories.

Hartleyan &c Doctrine of Self-love: E.g. cf Observations on Man (Pt II) Chap Iv Sect III: “However all these things mortify pride, and the refined self-interest; lead, or even compel, men to resign all to God; and so advance them to a more pure, disinterested, and permanent love of God”. (1791) I 470. See also CN III 3907 and n.

<The Egyptian Frog . . . Virtue>: Written in pencil vertically up the outer margin.

Priestleyan Education from Selfishness to Virtue: In his Miscellaneous Observations relating to Education § XI “Of Instruction in the Principles of Morals and Religion” Priestley says: “A child has no love or affection for any person whatever, till he has felt their importance to himself… and by degrees…he loves others without any regard to himself”. (1788) 103.

With this theory of developing Self-love, cf Coleridge’s comments on the Moravian doctrine of the instantaneity of the New Birth in 5240 f28.

4605 21½.83 In AP 276–9 this entry is presented var as two, but Coleridge’s “n.b. begin [underlined] at “Save only—” suggests that the first paragraph preceding this instruction was to be inserted later (it is not deleted), possibly at the end of the entry. The paragraph standing first in 4604, which was possibly a later insertion, may have been intended to link the two discussions together. The revisions, emphases, and dialogue style convey an impression that Coleridge was here preparing for dictation, or more systematic writing, or possibly for discussion with his Thursday evening class.

Spirits that peep, and mutter. Isaiah 8:19.

f43 moe: mow (var). OED.

Plans of teaching the Deaf & Dumb have been invented: In 1819 John P.Arrowsmith’s The Art of Instructing the Infant Deaf and Dumb indicated public interest at that time in institutions for the Deaf and Dumb. Thomas Braidwood’s resignation from the Birmingham Deaf and Dumb Institution, announced in the Gentleman’s Magazine for Nov 1819 (Vol LXXXIX 452–3), included an offer to train a successor in the educational methods introduced by his father, who had a famous school for the deaf and dumb in Edinburgh. On 25 May 1819 the Courier carried a dramatic account of a large London meeting, under royal patronage, on the occasion of the anniversary of the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb founded in 1792.

There was some controversy at the time as to whether deaf mutes should be educated separately or with other children. Coleridge may have seen accounts of early methods of which it was said that the children’s concepts, being confined to visible objects and sensations, were few, and that abstract or figurative language was impossible to them. Hence Coleridge’s jest at the expense of superstitionists.

Homines sumus…alienum: The well-known tag, adapted from Terence (Heautontimorumenos I 25): “We are human beings, and nothing human is indifferent/alien to us.” Cf CN II 2123 and n.

f43^v Pietists…Mystics: Boehme? George Fox?

Oι, Oι, παπαι & c: Exclamations of grief, pain, etc, as Coleridge implies, especially frequent in Greek tragedy.

as in a night mair…you are forced to believe: Coleridge writes with authority; see e.g. CN I 1619, 1649; CN II 2468 and n; CN III 3322 and particularly III 4046 and nn.

During the years of ill health…I saw a host of Apparitions: The past tense is support for a date c Oct 1819 for this and the succeeding entries. On his apparitions, seen and heard, see TT May 1823.

You according to your own: [account?].

f44 Superstitionist: Coleridge below plays on the roots of the word. nihil super stare: “there is nothing standing above”.

ast superstitit aliquid…non apparet [?(ςς/55/§)]: “but there is something above. There is a standing above of something which is not apparent in the external, that is, in the apparent”

The figures or letters in parenthesis are puzzling graphically—two Greek letters or ligatured twice, the number 55, or C’s paragraph or section sign are equally plausible readings—and from lack of any known context in source material, all are meaningless textually.

nothing more than a brain-image…in apparenti non apparet: Is Coleridge here taking issue with Berkeley? Cf the first of the Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous: “HYLAS: I must own Philonous, those colours are not really in the clouds as they seem to be at this distance. They are only apparent colours.

PHILONOUS: Apparent call you them? how shall we distinguish these apparent colours from real?

HYLAS: Very easily. Those are to be thought apparent, which appearing only at a distance, vanish upon a nearer approach.” Works ed A.A. Luce and T.E.Jessop (1948–53) II, 184.

outness: Coleridge considered it Berkeley’s word; see CN III 3325, and in this volume 5281 and nn. For a related discussion and phraseology see TT 3 Jan 1823, where again Berkeley is referred to in this context.

4606 21½.84 In AP var down to nearer to 68.

Coleridge was born 21 October 1772, but at least as early as 1801 he put his birth a day earlier (CN I 997) and was given to advancing the clock against himself; see also CN I 1252, II 2237, 2703.

The only record among Coleridge’s admission papers to Christ’s Hospital is of the date of his baptism, 30 December 1772. At this 20 Oct 1819 date therefore Coleridge has made himself two years and one day too old.

M^rs C, who is older: Sarah Fricker was born in 1770.

Miss Bullock: Miss Elizabeth Bullock, sister of Margaret, Mrs [James] Milne, in Highgate; friendly neighbours from earliest days there. CL V 186. For “Miss B” see also CL IV 936 and V 4211.

Williams: J.H.B.Williams, Gillman’s assistant. A long letter to him, dated “Oct 20th 1819–my 49th Birthday” does not fully clarify what appeared snakelike in Williams towards Gillman, but he seems to have been demanding more salary under threat of setting up in partnership with some other surgeon, possibly a competitor. CL IV 957–62. A gift copy of Sibylline Leaves (1817) inscribed to him was on sale in Valparaiso, Indiana, in 1978.

4607 21½.85 Was the first snow a subject for comment for a Devonshire man? Cf CN I 997.

4608 21½.86 AP 295 var; EHC has added to this entry the date attached to 4606 above in the MS.

Cf CN I 882. There are charming references to Henry Gillman as a young conchologist in Sept 1816; CL IV 682, 684.

conchozetesytic: Not in OED; the coined noun, “shell-seeking” is by the alteration of sy turned into an adjective.

4609 21½.87 Entered (with modifications) a second time in the notebooks, from Sir Walter Ralegh History of the World; see CN II 3085 and n.

4610 21½.88 Milton versus Salmasius: Milton’s first Defensio pro populo Anglicano (1651) was in reply to Claudius Salmasius Defensio regia pro Carolo I; a Second Defence (1654) was translated in 1816 by Coleridge’s friend, Francis Wrangham, and printed in his Scraps (1816) of which one of the fifty copies was presented by the author to Coleridge and annotated by him (Green SC 846). The translation appeared also in Wrangham’s Sermons, dissertations, translations, including…Miltons Defensio Secunda (3 vols 1816) III 9–199.

Whether the Latin phrase here, “the latter barks, the former roars”, was coined or quoted by Coleridge has not been discovered. Did he think of it as he read Webster? See the work referred to in the next entry, where Webster’s “Epistle Dedicatory” refers to controversies “when the whole giddy Troop of barking Dogs, and ravenous Wolves, did labour to devour me”. But barking, roaring, howling, bawling, and the like are frequent accusations in the Second Defence, though not precisely in Coleridge’s phrase.

4611 21½89 The first two sentences in English (f44^v) are in AP 279–80.

The entry is made up of running comments on and around John Webster The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (1677); Coleridge’s annotated copy is in the BM. Unlike the reading of Luther’s Table Talk reflected in entries 4594–4600 which show changes in pen, ink, slope of writing, suggesting more broken sessions with that folio, this entry is neater and more uniformly written, probably at a desk.

Ille υeritatis…: The quotation and a shoulder-note reference to St Gregory I Homiliae appear on p 2 of Webster. Tr: “The defender of the truth should be a man who when he knows what is right is not afraid, and does not blush, to speak out”.

The old Law of England…living truth: One notes that in 4599 f29^v C had been thinking about Sir Thomas Browne, and referring to a small collection of his works which included Urn-Burial but actually here again he is jotting down and adding to another bit of Webster. Cf Webster’s attack on Casaubon, “a sworn Witchmonger”, for his charges in his life of Dr Dees, made after Dees’s death. Casaubon, Webster said (8): “cannot but allow of the Law that doth punish them for digging up the bones of the dead, to use them to Superstition or Sorcery; what may he then think the World may judge him guilty of, for uncovering the Dormitories of the deceased, not to abuse their bones, but to throw their Souls into the deepest pit of Hell?”

f45 Luke, 6:26: Webster (13) quoted and gave the reference to the verse: “And woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you: for so did their fathers to the False Prophets.”

The Quakers…by Baxter. In his autobiography Richard Baxter wrote Bk I Pt II § 431:

And here the Fanaticks called Quakers did greatly relieve the sober People for a time: for they were so resolute, and gloried in their Constancy and Sufferings, that they assembled openly (at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate) and were dragged away daily to the Common Jail; and yet desisted not, but the rest came the next day nevertheless: So that the Jail at Newgate was filled with them. Abundance of them died in Prison, and yet they continued their Assemblies still!

Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696) 436. See CN III 4459 and n, also 5246 and n.

“If we consider…itself”: Loc cit var. In the first sentence Coleridge added state and circumstances. The second sentence appears to be Coleridge’s addition also carrying on more or less in Webster’s style. The remainder of this paragraph is Webster.

It is worth noticing that in time Coleridge would scarcely know what was owing to Webster and what to himself in this entry. The difficulty and rarity of love and respect for truth was frequently a subject in Coleridge’s own works.

f45^v Tertullian & others cited by Lessing: I.e. in Anti-Goeze Chap III Tertullian is quoted “ut fides, habendo tentationem, haberet etiam probationem” (“that faith by being tested may also be confirmed”) and “vane et inconsiderate hoc ipso scandalizantur, quod tantum haereses valeant …nihil valebunt si illa tantum valere, non mireris” (“foolishly and thoughtlessly are they scandalized by the power of heresies,…the heresies will have no power if you do not marvel that they have such power”). Lessing Sämmtliche Schriften (30 vols Berlin 1796) VI 194–5; see CN I 377 and n. On Anti-Goeze see The Friend (CC) I 34n.

Si de υeritate…relinquatur: Webster (16) quoted and gave the incorrect reference to Augustine in the margin; the passage comes from St Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Ezechielem I vii (Migne PL LXXVI 842): Tr: “If a scandal follows from truth, it is better for scandal to be allowed than for truth to be abandoned”.

Naturæ ignari…: From Jean Baptiste Van Helmont as quoted by Webster (17), a page annotated 27 Oct 1819 by Coleridge. Webster was attacking witch-mongering, whether vulgar or learned, for attributing to magic and deviltry many “wonderful effects…if they did not themselves understand their causes”, and brings in “the learned Philosopher and Physician” in support, giving as usual a reference in the margin. The p. 597 Coleridge cites (after Webster) fits Helmont’s De injectis materialibus: Ortus medicinae (Amsterdam 1648). Coleridge altered and added to Webster’s quotation from Van Helmont, substituting the vivifying libris solis…legebant for Webster’s “per lectionem librorum” and adding υel a lectionibus suis alienum sonat. Tr: “Those who are ignorant of Nature [Coleridge adds: having learned about Nature by the reading of books alone, as one might read tales about the Emperor of China or some Tartar chief], lay claim to intimate knowledge of the secrets of Nature [Webster: by the reading of books]; what they have not observed, however [Coleridge adds: or what conflicts with their reading] they assume to be either impossible or untrue, or the work of witchcraft and the devil.”

Nam et omni…: Quoted var from Webster 18, where the reference to Augustine’s City of God x is in the margin; Coleridge has inserted υiribus autem praeter υisum effecta; Webster has altered the sentence order. Tr: “For man is greater even than any miracle performed by man’s agency. No matter how cheap the natural marvels, that we can see, <butwhich are effected by powers that we cannot see> have come to be held because they are always before us, yet, whenever we contemplate them with the eye of wisdom, we see that they are greater marvels than the least familiar and rarest of miracles.” Augustine De Civitate Dei x 12 tr David S.Wiesen (Vol III LCL 7 vols 1957–).

Webster…the whole §.1. of Chap. II: Chapter II, which attempted to define witches and witchcraft according to various writers, is introduced by the following paragraph (19–20):

Those that are Masters in Ethicks teach us, that every Vertue hath on either side one Vice in the extreme, and that Vertue only consists in the mean, which how hard that mean is to be kept in any thing, the Writings and Actions of the most Men do sufficiently inform us. This is manifest, that not many years ago the truth of Philosophy lay inchained in the Prisons of the Schools, who thought there was no proficiency to be made therein, but only in their Logical and Systematical ways: so that (in a manner) all liberty was taken away both in writing and speaking, and nothing was to be allowed of that had not the Seal of Academick Sanction. And now when Philosophy hath gotten its freedom, to expatiate through the whole Sphere of Nature, by all sorts of inquiries and tryals, to compleat a perfect History of Nature, some are on the other hand grown so rigid and peremptory, that they will condemn all things that have not past the test of Experiment, or conduce not directly to that very point, and so would totally demolish that part of Academick and Formal Learning that teacheth men Method and the way of Logical procedure in writing of Controversies, and handling of Disputes. Whereas what is more necessary and commendable for those that treat of any controverted point in Writing or in other Disputations, than a clear and perspicuous Method, a right and exact stating of the Question in doubt, defining or describing the terms that are or may be equivocal, and dividing the whole into its due and genuine parts, distinguishing of things one from another, limiting things that are too general, and explaining of every thing that is doubtful? Those that would totally take away this so profitable and excellent a part of Learning, are not of my judgment, nor can be excused for having run into that extreme that is extremely condemnable. Let Experimental Philosophy have its place and due honour; and let also the Logical, Methodical, and Formal ways of the Academies have its due praise and commendation, as being both exceedingly profitable, though in different respects; otherwise, in writing and arguing, nothing but disorder and confusion will bear sway.

Bacon’s…Lock: The precise reference in Bacon is uncertain because Bacon repeatedly stressed the need for data and experiment as methods of discovering knowledge, as opposed to mechanistic hypotheses. In An Essay concerning Human Understanding Locke’s denunciations of scholastic logic and preference for geometric over verbal demonstrations (e.g. in Bk IV) seemed to Coleridge no doubt to press for visual as against intellectual and ideal signs as evidence. What Locke called “natural philosophy” he restricted to observation and the factual, but unlike Bacon he also made use of the corpuscular hypothesis and so comes in for greater scorn here.

f76 The Miracle of the Blind Man: Webster (51) discussed this miracle, using it to differentiate among Christ’s miracles. He refers to John 9:1– 3; see 4854 f52. Coleridge found verses 6 and 7 more to his allegorical purpose, whether from reading the chapter, or his memory, or Webster later at 139, which he annotated:

When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.

And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

το προπαιδευτιον: An expression common with Coleridge, in English as well as Greek, “the introductory training”; see below 5123

f46^v Believe (says Augustine)…: Cf CN III 3888 and n.

all faith begins in a predisposition, analogous to instinct: See below 4692 ff 21–21^v.

vital air, which the particular Will breathes…the first disposition to breathe…the power of drawing the Breath: Coleridge, often used the breath and breathing as metaphor or illustration; see 4613 and 4689 and nn.

“in us both to will and to do”: Phil 2.13.

prevenient Grace: Used in The Friend (CC) I 433; cf prevenient Spirit in 5249 f34^v.

την κολυοβηθραν: κολνμβηθραν: AV “the pool” of Siloam John 9:7. Coleridge stresses the secondary meaning of an enclosed piece of water, a reservoir; the primary meaning being a pool used for swimming or bathing.

“he went his way…and he came seeing”; John 9:7.

the first act of the Infant…at the Mothers breast: See on recurrences of this image, particularly in the notebooks, CN II 2352, 3107 and nn; also CN I 838, 867, 924 and nn. The cupping machine recalls Quarles’s Emblem VIII from Bk II of his Emblems Divine and Moral, and the accompanying plate; see 4975, 4981 and nn.

not only a salve: See 4854 f55 fn.

the reservoir of the Sent: I.e. Siloam; see 4612.

4612 21½.90 the active Substantive of the Messiah: From the Hebrew form, “mashiyah”, which is both active and passive, Anointer and Anointed, in Latin distinguished as Unctor and Unctus.

the Siloam: the Latin word for “sent” in John 9:7 is “missus”; see 4611 f46^v.

sic ut patris…demissus: “sent down equally in the father’s and his own right and name”.

4613 21½.91 AP 284 var. “Alas! Alas! Alas!” Mrs Gillman wrote below this entry, which was applied personally and expanded in a letter of Nov 1819 to “the Author of Peter’s Letters to his Kinsfolk”, J.G.Lockhart. CL IV 966. See also 4689.

Coleridge’s frequent personal identification with birds is discussed in CN III 3314n. His recurrent references to breathing (see e.g. 4611 f46^v) remind one that he was asthmatic.

461421½.92 AP 284. Was Walter de la Mare, a reader of AP, influenced by this note, in his poem “The Veil”?

Of whom among the celebrated anonymous was Coleridge thinking? He early detected Scott, long before Scott’s anonymity was publicly broken at a dinner in February 1827 when Scott admitted authorship of the Waverley novels.

4615 21½.93 defences of Xtnty. See 5158 and n.

the stickling for Daniel: From Newton onwards, Daniel and Revelation became foundation stones for those theologians who used the time prophecies in them to argue the physical “Second Coming of Christ”. See 4912 and n. Coleridge’s view that Daniel was a local political tract of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes appears in an annotation on Eichhorn AT III 388 in CM; also in 5287 and n.

Dodwell & Bentley: Henry Dodwell Sr (1641–1711) for his Dissertationes in Irenaeum (1695) and Richard Bentley (CN I 312) for his Proposals for Printing a New Edition of the Greek Testament (1721), and for his doubts on Daniel and Revelation, were widely attacked; see e.g. Biographia Britannica (1778–93) II 45, 231 and v 323.

C is true…D. prophesied of him: In Matt 24:15–16 Jesus refers to “Daniel the prophet”, and among the literalists Daniel was used in contending that Jesus was the Messiah. See 4912n.

4616 29.26 This is written on the right-hand half of the page, a vertical line having been drawn to mark off a table of tenses for a Greek Grammar (CN III 4210 and n).

Abstine a fabis: “Abstain from beans” (κυάμων απεχεσθε), the wellknown phrase is referred to in the first edition of TT where HNC quotes De Quincey on Coleridge’s conversation at Poole’s dinner table in 1807; Q accused STC of having stolen an explanation of this taboo against beans from “a German author”. HNC referred to Lucian, but see also Plutarch, in the Moralia, “The Education of Children” 12E. (Undoubtedly it was quoted by many Germans, and others.) “‘Abstain from Beans’ means that a man should keep out of politics, for beans were used in earlier times for voting upon the removal of magistrates from office.” Tr E.C.Babbitt (LCL 15 vols 1927) I 61.

See also T.Browne Pseudodoxia Epidemica, etc.: Works 5A in CM I. αγονατον: “without knees” (animals), “without joints” (plants); it im-plies heeds no supplication as Coleridge has it, because the Homeric custom requires of the supplicant for mercy, prostration at someone’s feet, and grasping his knees. Diogenes Laertius preserved Aristotle’s explanation of Pythagoras’s dictum against beans “because they are like the genitals or because they are like the gates of Hades,…as being alone unjointed, or because they are injurious, or because they are like the form of the universe,…or because they belong to oligarchy since they are used in election by lot”. Diogenes Laertius VIII Pythagoras 34.

Numa too forbad…: Plutarch in his Life of Numa Pompilius (715–672 B.C.), the second legendary king of Rome, attributes many Pythagorean practices to him but not the taboo against beans. Aulus Gellius records (10.15) a taboo against the priest of Jupiter (flamen Dialis) touching or even naming a she-goat, raw flesh, ivy, and beans.

Zeus…the Father of Life: The Latin Jupiter is derived from Jovis pater, and Jove is cognate with Zeus; the meaning of the root At appears to be sky—light—heaven—as in dies “day”; the connexion with ζην, “to live”, was made by Aeschylus (Suppliants 584) and Plato (Cratylus 396 A, B). ζωης πατηρ πατηρ means “Father of Life”.

κυω: “to be pregnant”, “to bear young”.

κυανος: “dark-blue”, though Coleridge’s reasons are speculative. Modern etymological dictionaries suggest that his other words may be all from the same root.

κυαμος: “a bean”, as Coleridge says, like κυάμοι μελανóχροες, μελανóχροες, “blackskinned beans”. Homer Iliad 13.589.

blind appetences: Cf, among many uses, 4984 f89^v, 5197, 5235, and nn.

Infera: “infernal regions”.