4617 29.27 Picus asserts’. In Pico’s Heptaplus: Opera omnia (2 vols Basle 1601) I 3, his mystical description of creation, a preface to the reader begins: “Antiquity imagined three worlds. Highest of all is that ultra-mundane one which theologians call the angelic and philosophers the intelligible [Coleridge’s intellectual, translating Pico’s “intellectualem”], and of which, Plato says in the Phaedrus, no one has worthily sung. Next to this comes the celestial world, and last of all, this sublunary one which we inhabit.” Tr Douglas Carmichael Heptaplus: Pico della Mirandola (NY 1940) 75.

So Swedenborg: E.g. in Heaven and Hell §§ 29–31.

pantoïomathy. A coinage not in OED, from παντοίος “every kind of” and μάθησις, “learning”, i.e. “miscellaneous learning”.

phytozoic, zoic, and noerozoic: The first and third are not in OED: “pertaining to vegetable life, life, and intellectual life”. Zoic also is Coleridge’s coinage; the earliest use cited in OED is dated 1863. Cf 4553 and n.

Bichat’s dichotomy, zoic and zoophyte: I.e. Bichat’s division of life into the strictly animal and that common to animals and vegetables, was developed in his Recherches sur la υie et la mort, which was quoted in translation in Rees’s Cyclopaedia in the article “Life” [?by William Lawrence], as is stated—and the point discussed—by Thomas Rennell, the Cambridge Christian Advocate, in his Remarks on Scepticism (1819), which Coleridge read. See below 4825 and n.

On Bichat further, see 4639, 4825, and 4829.

In the QR for July 1819 the leading review article dealt with some of the main documents in the Abernethy-Lawrence controversy:

John Abernethy 1. An Enquiry into the Probability & Rationality of Mr Hunter’s Theory of Life, being the subject of the first two Anatomical Lectures delivered before the Royal College of Surgeons of London, 1814. 2. An Introdn to Comparative Anatomy, Physiology…two Introductory Lectures…21st & 25th March 1816. W^m Lawrence. 3. Physiological Lectures. John Abernethy (1817) 4. Lectures on Physiology, Zoology & the Natural History of Man…W^m Lawrence (1819). 5. Sketches of the Philosophy of Life Sir T. C, Morgan 1819. 6. Remarks on Scepticism, being an Answer to the Views of Bichat, Sir T.C. Morgan, & Mr. Lawrence. Rev Thos Rennell (Cambridge 1819) 7. Cursory Obserυations upon the Lectures &c by one of the people called Christians (1819) 8. A letter to Reυ. Thomas Rennell. From a Graduate in Medicine (1819)

Coleridge may have been stimulated by this article. He is here dealing with material to be found in his own TL.

norma loquendi philosophicè: “standard of philosophic speech”.

totus ubique…unvernünftig: “totally everywhere, is quite incomprehensible; not however irrational”. Coleridge paraphrases, adding apodictally, i.e. “demonstrably”; cf 4831 f57.

Vernunft…sumptarum: In this final sentence in the paragraph, the mixture of German and Latin as elsewhere may represent a struggle for clarification through the examination of two languages. Vernunft (Reason), is an association (consociatio, Zunft) of verities (Wahren); (note the pun-like similarity of Zunft and nunft, Wahr and Ver). Understanding (Verstand) is the fixation and sub-stantiation (4679) of perceptions (Wahrnehmungen), of perceptions taken for truths (perceptionum pro υeris sumptarum).

In the 7^th B. of P. Mimndula’s Heptaplus…John & Paul…: Was Coleridge following up a footnote reference by John Donne? See CN III 4050 and n.

In Proemium to Bk 7 (Opera omnia I 33) Pico quotes John 17:21 and I Corinthians 13:12:

This is the true felicity, to be one spirit with God, so that we possess God in God, not in ourselves, knowing him just as we are known. For he knows us not in ourselves, but in himself. Likewise we shall know him in himself and not in ourselves. This is our whole reward, this is the eternal life, this is the wisdom which the wise men of this world do not know, that from every imperfection of multiplicity we are brought back to unity by an indissoluble bond with him who is himself the One.

For this felicity Christ prayed to his Father in this fashion: “Father, bring it about that just as you and I are one, they also may be one in us.” This is what Paul was hoping for when he said, “I shall know Him not in part, but as He is. And if he hoped, did he not say rightly, “Who shall separate me from the love of Christ?” And he wished to be dissolved, that he might become one with Christ.

Tr (cit above) 152.

Diccearchus…: Dicaearchus of Messana, contemporary of Aristotle, “though he accepted divination by dreams and frenzy, cast away all other kinds”. Cicero De divinatione 15: De senectute…tr W.A.Falconer (LCL 1922).

morbid sleep and a certain species of derangement: Coleridge’s modern interpretation of a later passage in the same work is of interest. Cf I 113 (tr ibid): “In fact the human soul never divines naturally, except when it is so unrestrained and free that it has absolutely no association with the body, as happens in the case of frenzy and dreams.”

For Coleridge on “Second Sight” see 4908 and n.

4618 29.28 The entry took some cues from John Webster The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft Chap VII; see 4611 and n. It is a chapter close to Coleridge’s own thinking, in which Webster discusses metaphorical or other imaginative ways of reading the Bible, and the logical interpretation of fact and miracle. See also the next entry.

praeter intellectum…definientem: “beyond intellect”, or “beyond the defining mind/understanding”.

(rationi contrarium): “contrary to reason”.

(nihilismus turpis): “base nihilism”.

σαρκος, intelligentia carnis: Webster 138 referring in his shoulder note to Rom 8:7 says: “And there is hardly one thing that the Scriptures are more against…because the carnal mind τò σαρκ ò ς is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; of which Beza saith: Probatio cur intelligentia carnis sit mors, quia, inquit, Dei esthostis”. (Cf 4924.) Webster continues, citing in the margin Isaiah 29:14 and I Cor 1:19, 20: “For it is voritten, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, , and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent;σύνεσινAnd again, Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? .”

all the philosophy…natural and acquired: Cf Webster (ibid): “And the words of the Hebrew in that place of Isaiah do signifie all that height of wisdom or understanding, that Man either have by Nature, or acquire by Art and Industry.”

πληρωμα: “pleroma, plenitude”, the fullness, or totality. Coleridge makes clear his use of the word here; see also for variants, e.g. 5233 and n.

sophisma pigrum: in LS (CC) 148 Coleridge translated it “sophistry of sloth”, in Logic (CC) 119 “sophistry of indolence”, i.e. the easy, most obvious interpretation, shallow and wrong. Webster (138–9) decried various rationalisms including Socinianism; and he believed that though one should “keep close to the literal sense, if it include not an absolute absurdity” in interpreting the Scriptures, yet there is a place for “Allegorical, Metaphorical, Mystical, and Parabolical Expositions”.

f17^v This συνεσις, =the Mosaic This “intelligence”, “prudence”, “wisdom” is the Mosaic “Serpent”.

sensu Mosaico: This is all part of Webster’s argument (142 foll) against the literal and in favour of an allegorical interpretation, “in the Mosaic sense”, of the serpent’s temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden (145–6):

Moses (in that action) doth purposely intitlr the Devil by the name of a Serpent, because (by his effectual creeping into the interiour senses, as also by infecting Mens minds with venomous perswasions) he doth very lively represent the nature, disposition and qualities of the venemous Serpent. And in this same sense was the Apostle jealous over the Corinthians, lest as that Serpent (which must necessarily be understood of Satan by a Metaphor of that Serpent) beguiled Evah through hersubtilty, so they might by the cunning of Satan in his false Apostles have their minds corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Virgil: Coleridge quotes the Aeneid Bk III 89 var, spoiling the metre with animisque for atque animis: “Grant, father, an omen, and glide into our hearts”.

The plate in Andrew Tooke’s Pantheon, the illustration to the chapter on Aesculapius, with the Trunk-like Club encircled by the serpent, the God-Man, and the little woman, appears in various forms in editions from 1726 onwards. Coleridge described the plate in a letter of 9–10 April 1824 (CL V 348–9), where Mr Gillman as a “demi-God” was substituted for the God-Man, Coleridge’s edition is unknown but see CN III 3683 where a 1771 edition among others have some claim. He could be writing from childhood recollections. See CL II 1042 for an application of this illustration to Davy.

Tooke says that Aesculapius “was thought to have a Power of recalling the Dead to Life again. Whereupon Pluto complained to Jupiter… and at length Jupiter killed him with a Stroke of Thunder”.

Eve, (Homo inferior, Humanitas passiυa): “inferior Man, passive Humanity”.

Jah…(α πολλων): Jah, an alternative for “Jahweh”. Coleridge suggests that Jehova, the I AM THAT I AM of Exodus 3:14, the Word, and Son of the One God, the Monas, the descender into Hell, and the Saviour of mankind inspired this picture of the Greek, Aesculapius, who, according to one version, was the son of Apollo. Coleridge alludes to the derivation given by Tooke from Chrysippus, “from the privative particle a- and polloi [many] just as the Sun is called Sol because it is sole”. Tooke Pantheon (1771) 36 fn.

…Θεάνθρωπος: “God the saviour, friend of man, God-man”.

Syllogyzari…λεγομενου: The Latin is Webster’s (143), the Greek was added by Coleridge: “A syllogism cannot be based on a particular fact or an unique occurrence.”

4619 29.29 The entry arises from Webster’s Chap x, on “Whether faln Angels be corporeal or simply Incorporeal, and the absurdity of the assuming of Bodies, and the like consequents”. See 4618 above and 4621 below.

Skiomachy: More usually, sciamachy, sham or shadow-fighting, or, a fighting with mere shadows.

among the Fathers, Tertullian, Augustin, Nazianzen…Bede, were Materialists’. Webster wrote (207–8) that Angels “are said to be incorporeal and immaterial: but compared to God, are found to be Corporeal and material. And of this opinion beside were Tertullian, S.Augustin, Nazianzen, Beda, and many others, as may be seen in the learned Writings of Zanchy upon this subject: with whose words we shall shut up this particular”, and he quotes the passage quoted by Coleridge below. On the other side of the debate, arguing that angels must be incorporeal, Webster cites “Aquinas, and the rest of the Scholastick rabble” (211).

de rebus: “of facts”.

Zanchius, one of the learned iss- & er[r]-imuses: Coleridge jokingly describes him with two forms of the Latin superlative: “one of the most learned of the most learned”. Coleridge evidently forgot Zanchius’s dates (1516–90).

Mihi υidetur…poteris: Webster (208) begins with “Certum enim est, ex iis” etc, “For it is certain…”. Otherwise, with minor differences in punctuation, Coleridge transcribed it verbatim: “It seems to me from the accounts of angels in the Scriptures, that the interpretation of the Fathers is more probable than that of the Schoolmen—but whichever you follow you will not sin grievously, nor can you on that account be considered a heretic.”

4620 29.30 Cahinistic…had been accustomed to: Perhaps based on a reading of Peter Heylyn “A Necessary Introduction” Cyprianus Anglicus (1671) 1–38, which traces the relation of the English Reformers to Calvin and other Continental ones. See 5202. Philipp Melancthon (1497–1560) and Oecolampadius (1482–1531) were Reformers who stressed a return from “Papal” to “Biblical” doctrines and the need for an ecclesiastical polity responsible to God alone but under the protection of the state.

Arminianism: Cf CN III 3963 and 4300 and nn.

Spallanzi’s animalcules: Coleridge refers to the experiments of Spallanzani (1729– 99), the Italian naturalist, whose Tracts on the Nature of Animals and Vegetables tr J.G.Dalyell (Edinburgh 1799) began in Chap I with “Observations and Experiments upon the Animalcula of Infusions”. See also 5086 n. He experimented by infusing various seeds in distilled water, examining them periodically, and seeing animalcula which, notwithstanding further subjection to intense heat (p 5) still lived. Similar experiments were performed with frogs’ eggs, etc, subjected to intense cold.

dearing up…by Bull & Waterland: Daniel Waterland The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Asserted, in Reply to Some Pamphlets (London 1734) and George Bull Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, ex scriptis quae extant ed G. Zola (3 vols Ticini 1784–6). Cf the letter to Mr Pryce dated [April 1818] CL IV 849–52; and CN III 3560, 3934, 3968, and 4321 nn.

Bolingbroke’s God without moral attributes: For a similar statement see The Friend (CC) I 46 and n, also a scornful letter to Godwin in 1800 (CL I 652).

4621 29.31 The entry appears to be later than 4611 and again quotes Webster The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (1677) 208–9.

Quicquid agit…mediatione virtutis: “Whatever acts, acts either by means of a direct application or by means of some power”. Webster quotes the phrase in “Chap X. Whether faln Angels be Corporeal or simply Incorporeal, and the absurdity of the assuming of Bodies, and the like consequents” (208):

If Angels be simply incorporeal, then they can cause no Physical or local motion at all, because nothing can be moved but by contact, and that must either be by immediate or virtual contact, for the Maxime is certain, Quicquid agit, agit υel mediatione suppositi, as when ones hand doth immediately touch a thing and so move it; υel mediatione υirtutis, as when a man with a rod or line, doth draw a thing forth of the water, both of these do require a Corporeal contact, that is, that the superficies of the body moving or drawing, must either mediately or immediately touch the superficies of the body to be moved or drawn.

Quicquid agit…υel magice: “Whatever acts, acts either mechanically or magically”. On this original meaning of magic C wrote a marginal note on Webster (p. 17), dated 27 Oct 1819. Cf also Lect 7 P Lects (CC).

Vide Kant: A reference to Kant’s Die Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (Riga 1787) 45–6, which deduced the laws of nature through a consideration of matter in motion. Coleridge’s copy of this, heavily annotated, is in the BM. See also 4929 n.

Tertullian makes Spirits…quædam insecta: Cf

Concerning the properties of their bodies it seems to have been the opinion of Tertullian (as I find him quoted by Mr. Baxter) that they had thin pure and aerial bodies which they could dilate and expand, condense and contract at their pleasures, and so frame them into diverse and sundry shapes; his words are these: Daemones sua haec corpora contrahunt, et dilatant, ut υolunt: sicut etiam lumbrici, et alia quaedam insecta. [Webster 213]

Tr: Demons contract and dilate their bodies at will, as also do earthworms and certain other insects.

Webster repeats the quotation from Tertullian in Chap XI 240.

To Zanchius…Super Cantic. p. 504: i.e. to the quotation in 4619 above add this from Webster 213, a few lines below the passage above:

Of this very point S.Bernard speaketh thus modestly: Videntur Patres de hujusmodi diversa sensisse, nec mihi perspicuum est unde alterutram doceam: et nescire me fateor. Sup, Cantic. p. 504.

Tr: The Fathers appear to have held diverse opinions respecting them. I do not see any clear reason for teaching the one or the other, and confess that I do not know. Sermon v § 7:

Bernard Cantica Canticorum tr Samuel J.Eales (1895) 27.

Stillingfleet observes…true miracles: Webster (236) gives the reference in a shoulder note: Edward Stillingfleet “Book II, Chap 8. The rational evidence of the Truth of Christian Religion from Miracles” Origines Sacrae, or A Rational Account of Christian Faith (1675) 252–3.

M+C=T: because T+M=C: Miracles plus Christianity equals Truth, because Truth plus Miracles equals Christianity.

what is a proof of course of N. [nature] altered: See CN II 3022 and III 3278. Close in date and theme is a useful passage in a letter to Allsop of 1820: CL V 36.

4622 29.32 Continuing from 4617, 4619 and 4621 the discussion of the logic of accepting or rejecting the basic principles of animal magnetism, and consulting Webster on witchcraft for analogies and kindred evidence, Coleridge here was reading Webster’s Chap XII in which Bacon, Boyle, Helmont are quoted passim.

in primo loco: “in the first place”.

Van Helmont’s explanation of “these wondrous effects”, i.e. strange vomits by the bewitched, Webster describes (252): “first the Devil, by reason of the league with the Witch, doth bring and convey the things to be injected to the place, or near the object, and makes them invisible by his spiritual power”.

Corn [elius] de Gemma: Helmont as reported by Webster says, “Cornelius Gemma de Cosmocriticis doth recite that he had seen a piece of three pounds or 48 ounces weight, of a brass Cannon, which a the daughter of a Cooper had voided by stool, with its characters or letters, together with an Eele wrapt in its secundines” (253). On the next page in Webster is the story of the vomiting Ox, introduced by “For (he saith) I have seen at Bruxells in the year 1599, that an Oxe” etc.

toto coslo: “by a whole heaven”.

So Wienholt, and Blumenbach: Arnold Wienholt (1749–1804); see also 4908 f69. Coleridge considered him one of the best writers on animal magnetism. Initially sceptical, Wienholt came to argue that for the very reason that it questioned medical assumptions, animal magnetism ought to be given a fair exposition and because it deals with what lies beyond ordinary perception, we should not quickly deny, simply on inadequate theoretical grounds, the facts stated. He was a practising doctor who described cases from his practice, not a controversialist. His chief work, Heilkraft des thierischen Magnetismus nach eigenen Beobachtungen (3 vols Lemgo 1802–3), isa useful compendium of contemporary theories and views of the more important practitioners. See also 4908 and n.

Blumenbach’s views were well known to Coleridge personally; see CN I–III Index I

4623 29.33 For these eight lines of The Garden of Boccaccio (49–56) PW I 479, first published in PW (1829), EHC gives in a footnote a variant from his text that is different also from this MS; he said his source was “probably a fragment of some earlier unprinted poem… inserted in one of Coleridge’s Notebooks”. For the reading life-ful here, his footnote reads “playful”, and he omitted line 5.

Philosophy/Poesy…: cf CN I 182, 383.

Light,…meeting eyeless things…reflects the image of her inward self: Cf the Plotinian phrases in CN II 2164–2167 and nn in entries deriving from John Smith’s Select Discourses. Cf also the “eyeless Face all Eye” in the lines On Donne’s Poem “To a Flea”: CN III 4073 f146^v; see also CN III 4074 and nn.

f20 Metaphor and Simile…lisping prophecy: The line adds force to Coleridge’s early remark that he attended Davy’s lectures to improve his own metaphors. But there is a MS fragment that develops his meaning here:

Similes and Metaphors judiciously used serve not only for illustration and refreshment. To inventive and thoughtful Minds they are often the suggesters of actual analogies—the apparent Likeness being referred to a common Principle, ex. gr. the <Likeness between> animal life and flame to the vital Air present for both.—But they have a third use— namely, that on many occasions they present a far more perfect, both a fuller and yet less equivocal a more precise & accurate language than that of abstract or general words.—For instance—I suppose myself to say—I have known many men who are instances of men who are religious because they are good but not one of whom the person was good because he was religious—and I wonder not that it startles & offends. For first, it may be understood as asserting a goodness divided & even contradistinguished, from Religion; both of which positions are false, and dangerous Falsehoods.—But let me begin with explaining the identity or co-inherence of Morality and Religion, as the Seed Transcendent containing both in one, and as one, which that which our elder Divines meant by the Seed of Election in the Soul, and which S^t Paul calls the Root (Vide the aphorism on the equivocal meaning of the term, Consciousness) and let it be premised that by moral and religious I mean only two different forms & states in the development or gradual unfolding of this principle into distinct existence and outward Manifestation, so as to become severally the objects of <a> distinct Consciousness—I may then safely speak of Morality proceeding from the Root of obedience as the Stem, and Leafage with its sprays & leaves, and Religion from the summit of the Stem, as the Crown & Flower of the Plant. But this Flower with its Petals, which differ from the leaves by a more refined Sap, & a more transparent membrane, in their more harmonious arrangement, & in more intimate communion with the Light, is not only the Seat of its especial Beauty & Fragrancy, but the Seat and organ of its re-productive Powers, and giving birth to new growths, both Stem and Flower. To give make the Image adequate & to give it a full spiritual propriety, we have only to conceive this process as expressed in successively proceeding in a succession of Acts in the same Individual, instead of its being carried on, as by in the vegetable Creation, in a succession of Individuals. For each immoral Soul is to be regarded as an Individual containing the (For we may say with the old Schoolmen, to whom the cause of Truth & reformed Religion is under far greater obligations than the shallow & contemptuous Spirit of the Philosophy in fashion will allow itself to suspect, each immortal Soul is at once an Individual & a Species: or rather, an Individual containing its Species & co-extended and coenduring with it and in it.) We may likewise pursue the Likeness on to another point. That as those Plants in which wherever the Crown or Corolla is conspicuous, the whole Plant is called a Flowers, and this whole all the numerous sorts of Plants thus distinguished have this for their common or family Name—naturally, & were it not for the mournful frequency of Pharisaical Hypocrisy, as universally would we express the whole of Goodness, the moral no less than the devotional Requisites, by the appellation, Religious, as, He is a religious Man, or the Religious of all ranks and denominations.

BM MS Egerton 2801 f252–f253, undated. The wm, G & R Turner, has no date, nor are the leaves notebook pages.

“fell not out in man & by man must arise”: St Paul’s numerous references to putting on the new man and putting off the old are found, e.g., in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10, but not these exact words.

Poesy shall rise into Philosophy…Poesy: See below 4692. Cf Chap xv BL (CC) II 25– 28, also II 185–6.

On ποιησις, “poesy/making/creating”; see CN III 4397 f49^v and n, the lecture notes for the thirteenth of the literary series, on poetry and art, 10 March 1818. See also 4832 f61^v.

4624 29.34 The entry is so close physically to 4623 and so similar in ink and hand, as to appear almost a continuation.

The Rhabdomancy…The Baquet of Zoo-magnetism: The art of dowsing, or finding water through divining rods by special gifts of the practitioner, was discussed in various numbers of the Archiv für den thierischen Magnetismus (see 4512 above), e.g. at II ii 89, in an article by Kieser, “Rhapsodien aus dem Gebiete des thierischen Magnetismus”; also at II iii 115–17; in Archiv III ii the first article is on “Das magnetische Behältniss Baquet und der durch dasselbe erzeugte Somnambulismus” also by Kieser. Another is about “Rhabdomantie und die Pendelschwingungen” (III ii 22–34), and in fact the whole number is given over to the subject of the influence of mind over matter by the use of rods, and the little tubs or troughs (baquets) of water used by Mesmer and others.

potenziation: See CN III 4418 f13^v and n.

Galυanism: See below 4639 f22^v and n.

“man-loving God—God-man—man world-loving in relation to God-man”.

f20 Oπιυμ...μαγνητικου?: “Opium and the whole narcotic genus of plants example and proof of the magnetic baquet?” On opium lettuce see 4719 and n.

Surgeon Stott: The Annual Register for 1826 (p 6) described him, reporting a legal dispute over his will, as “the late Mr. Ely Stott, of Hartstreet, Bloomsbury, a surgeon and electrician of some eminence”; he died in Nov 1821, leaving a fortune of more than £40,000. Well-known for his belief in the extraordinary virtues of electrical treatment, self-educated, “originally a footman…a man of great natural endowments …with singular energy in the acquisition of his practice and his fortune”, he is unnoticed in the medical journals of the period. See CN III 4387 and n, and also 4506 above.

“sleep”=“below the mind”.

animus…ανεμος: suggesting that the Latin for “mind” is derived from the Greek νóος. or (the circumflex accent indicating here that an m was omitted) rather than from “wind”

somnus and are etymologically closely related, but not, according to philological authorities, connected

4625 29.35 The first part of the entry discusses David Julius Pott Moses und David keine Geologen, ein Gegenstück zu Herrn Kirwan’s Esq. geologischen Versuchen in Briefen an Herrn Bergrath υon Crell as reviewed in Eichhorn ABbLitt x 177–88. The review includes David Julius Pott’s two parallel German translations of the first Creation story. It is clear that here Coleridge was following the review rather than Pott’s work itself.

First Chapter of Genesis. I[st] V[erse]…7th verse:

Pott translates both the Hebrew word boro in Gen 1:1 and the Hebrew word osoh in Gen 1:7 as schuf. (AV “created” and “made”.)

2. Pott (D.J.) renders our void…: Gen 1:2.

5. Are we quite sure that it is mere senseless-popular: Gen 1:2. The reviewer states (x 177–9) at some length that Pott’s work is addressed to a theologically uninformed laity.

Pott renders Gen 1:15 “Tag nannte Gott das Licht/und Nacht die Finsternis—so wards dann Abend/So ward es Morgen/Erster Tag”. (AV “And God called the Light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the mornings were the first day”.) The entry has in the background CN III 4418, 4554, 4555, 4556, 4557, 4558, 4559.

did call [,] make Day: I.e. by calling God made Day, Coleridge’s distinction between naming as mere designation and naming in the sense of calling forth or evoking. Yet cf Nomen (f21) below and n.

id a quo noscitur: “that by which it is recognized”.

Origin of the Cabalistic Philosophy…Cypher of the Cabala: I.e. the Cabalistic allegory of God as Light, the Creation as an emanation of lights, and the words of the Creation story in Genesis as symbols of the process. Coleridge was acquainted with Cabalistic theories from his reading in many sources—e.g. Tennemann x 170–85; Basnage History of the Jews (see 4709) 186, 207–29; Eichhorn NT II 171 and n. It is discussed at some length in Christoph Meiners’s life of Pico della Micandola; see CN III 374 and n. Cf P Lects (CC) Lect 3 ff112–113 and Lect 10 f448.

Christ as the Logos: See 5297 and n.

Verbum Dei…Nomen Dei: “Word of God”…“Name of God”. See above 4523 and n.

whatever…converts hydrogen+oxygen…becomes Nitrogen…: For Coleridge’s speculation on the chemistry of the division of water from air and dry land in the Creation see 4555, 4562 and nn.

Horne’s Comment[ary] on the Psalms, Vol. I. p. 76: This work is not mentioned in the Eichhorn ABbLitt review; George Horne A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (3 vols Liverpool 1816) I 76 var. Coleridge has corrected Horne’s to .

the 70: LXX is the common designation of the Septuagint. The Greek for cords or bands is χοiνια, not χινια, given correctly in all editions of Horne except 1816, which may indicate that Coleridge was using that edition of Horne.

f21 the first order of the Egyptian Gods: Here Coleridge returns to Pott, translating his version of Gen 1:11, then by natural transition summarizing and commenting on Carl Friedrich Dornedden “Erläuterung der Aegyptischen Götterlehre durch die Griechische in besonderer Rücksicht auf den Ursprung der Mosaischen Kosmogonie und des Mosaischen Gottes” Eichhorn ABbLitt x 284–378.

whose name…Mendes, i.e. Pan says Herodotus: quoting Dornedden: Eichhorn ABbLitt x 358; see below 4794 and n.

they were seven: Dornedden ibid x 360–1. Tr: “From all three orders we recognize some gods from other commentaries on the Egyptian theogony with as much certainty as historical truth can ever approach. So, for example, we discover that by the god of the first order, Mendes, is understood the week; by the god of the second order, Theuth, the first month; by the god of the third order, Osiris, the year, etc.”

Παν: All; see e.g. 4555 f49.

the Spirit of God on the face of the waters: Gen 1:2.

which I make a first day…& so have 8: See 4556, 4558, and 4562 which apparently precede this entry.

the Cabiri: Dornedden makes no mention of them here. For Coleridge on the Cabiri see CN III 4384 f149^v and n, CM II Faber A Dissertation on the Mysteries of the Cabiri also CM I, Böhme Works 174, and Lect 11 P Lects (CC) ff495–500.

των οκτω των πρωτων λεγομενων Θεων: “of the eight gods called the first”; Dornedden quotes the Greek. (Eichhorn ABbLitt 360).

In the 2^nd Class…λεγομενων ειναι: Dornedden ibid 360: Tr: “In the second, with the inclusion of Hercules…were twelve Gods: ‘Hercules is one of the second order, called the twelve’ ”.

And in the third class…τριτων: Dornedden ibid 360: Tr: “And in the third, with the exclusion of all the others, was Dionysus (Osiris): and Dionysus one of the third’ ”.

Dornedden replies…name of the Year: Dornedden argued (ibid 360–3) that in the first order, there were seven gods, plus their totality Pan, making a total of eight; that the twelve gods of the second order, marking the months of the year, arose out of the eight gods of the first; and that the gods of the third order, who arose from the second order but were to be excluded as they did not represent exact time reckonings, with the exception of Dionysus (Osiris), who was the year, or the totality of the second order.

Διονυσος…Θεων εγενοντο: Dornedden ibid 360. As Coleridge translated: “And Dionysus was one of the third [group of gods] who originated from the twelve.”

Nomen, Nομενον: Nomen, “name”, as from noumenon, “thought, idea”, as a higher reality, a favourite etymology of Coleridge’s; see e.g. 4770 and n.

Bacchus: I.e. Dionysus.

4626 29.36 The entry is drawn from Karl Georg Schuster’s “Beyträge zur Erläuterung des Neuen Testaments” in Eichhorn ABbLitt IX 953–1054, particularly 1036–48.

S^t Paul, Corinth: Schuster quotes I Cor 15:12 (op cit 1041).

αιμα και υδωρ: ĸαι υδωρ: “blood and water”; John 19:34 op cit 1036.

ειδωλον, εμπνoυν, σωμα πνενματικον: “an apparition, a breathing spiritual body”. The entire paragraph has in the background Schuster, op cit 1044–7:

Tr: And this perhaps was the point where this doctrine of a physical resurrection—which was so dear and comforting to the alleged disciple of John, Papias, no less than to John himself, the writer of the Apocalypse— grew together with the other concerning the Person of Jesus, or indeed where this latter at least grew out of the other, drawing nourishment out of it like a parasitic plant. If the friends of the former cited the example of Jesus, who was resurrected in flesh and blood with his former body, so the enemies very easily could sap the strength of this example with the defiant assertion that this matter of the body of Jesus itself did not have full justification, for without question it had been only an apparent or shadow body. I have no fear of going astray here, although the Gnostics, who later made so much ado about the person and the body of Jesus, have been expelled from the New Testament…but was there Gnosticism before the Gnostics? Probably the second century gave them their name, rather than their opinions, dreams, and language. The tree which stood in full bloom in this century must certainly have already laid down roots, have sprouted buds in the previous…. How easily in this double path—by way of either the despisers of the flesh generally and their idealized concept of the Messiah, or the gainsayers of any physical resurrection—could there have come into circulation even at this time, among others, the idea of an apparent body of Jesus, but not, of course, as a Gnostic sectarian opinion. And it is against this that this fact, with the witness of John to its authenticity, set forth with such rare zeal, appears purposefully and properly to stand here.

Marcion supported…death in pericardio: Schuster op cit 1047:

With precisely this Irenaeus later also fought the same error of Marcion: Adv. Haereses IV 57, p 357, ed Grabe. “How, if He were not flesh, but appeared as it were a man [Schuster inserts “a putative man, the shadow of a man”] was He crucified, and from His pierced side flowed blood and Water?”

Tr John Keble The Five Books of S. Irenaeus Against Heresies (Oxford 1872) 405.

Exactly so Tertullian…p. 366: Schuster op cit 1048:

Compare Tertullian, de Carne Christi 358. “They beset the flesh of Christ with doubtful questions as if it either had no existence at all or possessed a nature altogether different from human flesh. p. 361. He was crucified— he arose again…but how could all this be if he really had not in himself that which might be crucified…I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins…this very body of ours…certainly testifies its own origin from the two elements of earth and water,—from the former by its flesh, from the latter by its blood.”

Tr Peter Holmes The Writings of Tertullian (1869–70) II 163–4, 173–4, 185.

Origen contra Celsum…απο τον σσματος: Schuster, op cit 1048:

Origen, Contra Celsum II i 416, ed de la Rue: Celsus says, What [does he say] while his body is being crucified? Was his blood like

“Ichor such as flows in the veins of the blessed gods?”

He is merely mocking. But we will show from the Gospels, which were written seriously, even if Celsus could not accept them, that it was not the mythical ichor of Homer that poured from his side, etc.—

Henry Chadwick Origen Contra Celsum (Cambridge 1953) 96.

4627 29.37 Aγγελοι: “Angels”. The word angeloi, “messengers”, was used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew malokhim, “messengers of Jehovah”—hence the special meaning in English and other modern languages. See C&S (CC) 169 114. Coleridge’s interest in the use of the word is seen also e.g. in marginal notes on Donne LXXX Sermons 9 and Hacket A Century of Sermons 23, 24, both in CM II.

4628 29.38 There is a curious confrontation here of Steffens and the Royal Institution. Coleridge was reading with a quick eye for grist to his own mill (i.e. his interest in the links between animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms) in or about a lecture (Feb. 1820) by Braconnot on the action of sulphuric acid on vegetable matter. An abstract of it was to appear later in QJSLA (July 1820) IX 392–5. As Braconnot’s work was widely discussed, Coleridge’s exact source is unknown. But he was also recalling, or reading and questioning, material on the differences in the distribution of metals according to climates, and the variations in ductility, iron in cold Peat Climates and the ductile in hot climates in Steffens’s Beyträge 168–74. On these pages Steffens gathered together evidence on the reasons for the location of metals in various latitudes, i.e. their degree of cohesion; summing up (174) he said (tr): “If we take everything altogether, it is in fact very likely that the quantity of the more coherent metals [e.g. iron] stands in direct relationship to the distance from the equator, while the quantity of the less coherent metals [e.g. lead] stands in reverse relationship.”

Iron by gravitating Chemistry: The N-S axis in the Compass of Nature (4555) is also the carbon-nitrogen axis, and therefore the organic axis, and specifically of the animal kingdom, rich in nitrogen—hence Coleridge’s question, Whether at all…modified by…animal—medusae! The N-S axis in the Compass of Nature is also the earth’s polar axis—hence gravitating—and also, for Steffens and Coleridge, the axis of coherence and ductility (nitrogen incoherent, ductile, carbon coherent, not ductile). Furthermore N-S is the axis of the metals, whose ductility is determined by the predominance of the power of nitrogen or carbon. Therefore one would expect a correlation between gravity (specific gravity being a chemical quantity for Coleridge), latitude, metallic distribution, and vegetable matter in terrestrial strata.

The whole argument is a summary, an extension, and possibly a criticism of the pages already cited in Steffens Beyträge and in his Grundzüge 41, 45, 46, 67, 104.

Add to this Coleridge’s conviction that the metals are produced in geogony subsequent to organic matter (as implied in 4551 cited above), which has parallels in Steffens, and one has a partial explanation of the How far the revival of Metals may be attributed to decomposition υegetable?

4629 21½.94 The entry breaks off in mid-sentence.

Sir Pertinax MacSycophant, caricature of a grasping nouυeau riche Scot in Charles Macklin’s The Man of the World (1781), instructs his feckless son, Charles Egerton, in the financial advantages of the art of “boowing” to the rich. In a letter of 30 May 1814, Coleridge suggested the long monologue on this subject to Charles Matthews as a potentially profitable part. CL III 501. Matthews was now a near neighbour in Highgate.

4630 21½.95 In AP 286 var.

Abstraction’. See 4538, 4657 and nn.

Cf CN III 4250 where the artists in the “littery” studio are Washington Allston and WW.

Rafael: See CN III 4227 and n.

Claude Lorrain: See TT 24 July 1831.

Van Huyssen: Jan Van Huysum (1682–1749) was frequently used by Coleridge as an example of his imitation-copy distinction (as in the letter cited in the previous note).

Chauntry: Sir Francis Legatt Chantrey (1781–1842). Having met him (?early in 1819) Coleridge wrote J.H.Green, 16 Jan 1819: “I am more and more delighted with Chantry”, referring to “the power of his insight, Light, Manlihood, Simplicity, Wholeness—these are the entelechie of Phidian Genius—and who but must see these in Chantry’s solar face, and in all his manners?” CL IV 911. In July 1820 Chantrey made a bust of WW of which Coleridge said “it was more like W. than W. himself’. W Letters (2nd ed 1970) III 615n. See 5280 f10^v and n.

4631 21½.96 AP 86–7 var. Another example of Coleridge’s liking for simultaneous awareness of the vast or grand together with the minute or delicate; see e.g. CN I 1784.

4632 21½.98 AP 294, very considerably altered; the first paragraph is printed var also in “Omniana 1809–16”: LR I 345. This per-sonal one-page entry was written on f50 before 4633 and 4853 were on the surrounding pages, possibly with an intention of poetic development; cf the draft of Youth and Age in 4993, 4994, 4996.

In 4853 Coleridge refers to Leighton’s Works (1819) IV, Lectures VII and VIII. Leighton’s Lectures II, III, and IV are on “Happiness”. Coleridge appears to be taking issue with the conventional arguments and rather condescending tone of the Principal to undergraduates in the University of Edinburgh.

On the Eucharist, see CN III 3847n, and in this volume 5161 and n.

4633 21½.97 The last sentence, var, is in AP 298–300.

ff48v–49 Value…Worth: The distinction had been made in No 26 of the 1809–10 Friend (CC) II 350 (I 556) and more recently in Lect 12 P Lects (CC) f585 in a discussion of Kantian concepts.

f49 Guthrie’s Grammar: See CN I 1762 and n. Coleridge’s school-boy edition, possibly the 10th (1787), begins with “Astronomical Geography” as Part I, a description of the Newtonian solar system; it is highly exclamatory on the “thousands and thousands of suns, multiplied without end”, and generally emphasizes size and quantity.

bellum internecinium: “internecine war”; see another context for the phrase in CN III 4418 f14.

f49^v The Homæomery of one of the elder Greek Physiologists: I.e. Anaxagoras. OED cites Thomas Stanley’s History of Philosophy and Cudworth’s True Intellectual System for the use of the word homoeomery; both attribute to Anaxagoras the idea that particles of matter are homogeneous with their original, bones from bone, drops of blood from blood, etc, as Lucretius stated. Stanley op cit (1701) 63 quotes Lucretius De rerum natura I 830 foll. “Next Anaxagoras we must pursue,/And his Homoeomeria review./…entrails made/Of smallest entrails, bone of smallest bone,/Blood of small sanguine drops reduced to one;/Gold of small grains, earth of small sands compacted…”. Creech, whose translation of Lucretius Coleridge annotated (see under R.Anderson British Poets: CM I), does not refer to hearts either, nor does the original. Cf Logic (CC) 252. Tennemann (I 308–11) also discusses Anaxagoras and his “Homoiomerie”.

the Ellipse might be the Law only of the planetary Systems…the Solar …parabolic— and the Nebula…in the Hyperbola: Coleridge has evidently been misled by Eschenmayer’s Psychologie into this more Naturphilosophisch than geometrical astronomy. Actually, only ellipses represent the bound orbits of planets; a planet in an open-ended orbit would leave its planetary (solar) system. But cf Eschenmayer (ed cit 4640n) 564–5:

If we consider the intersections of a cone which gives us the ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola, the apex of this always remains untouched. With the hyperbola we have to imagine two cones with apexes touching in order to be able to lengthen the intersection through both.

It is only natural to assume that whatever regulates all intersections cannot itself be regulated by them, and further, that the originator, the punctum generans, of the entire cone must lie in its apex, and therefrom it may be concluded that the Naturzentrum will lie in the point which unites the two cones with their apexes coincident. This point is the implicit All with its living dynamic, while the base of the cone, stretching out into infinity, gives us the explicit of the universe, or unbounded space.

From this apex flow all functions and powers. The first function is the hyperbola, which manifests itself in the nebula. The immense sea of ether of the Naturzentrum is derived from this first and then, refracted from the under region, is set forth, where it assumes first the nature of the light, illuminating from the sun, that gives us our day.

The second function is the parabola, which becomes real in the solar movements in the second order of spherical bodies.

The third function is the ellipse, and this, as the third gradation which likewise falls under the unity of the sun, becomes real in the movements of the planetary bodies.

On Eschenmayer’s astronomy see 4640 and n. His basic error here lies in his theory of the apex of the cone as “punctum generans”; analytic geometry teaches that the crucial aspect of any cone is rather its generating angle. See G.B.Thomas Jr Calculus and Analytic Geometry (4th ed 1968) 354.

<the next page but one>: I.e. f50^v because f50 had already been used for 4632; see 4632n.

f50^v Eternity a post: “later Eternity” i.e. as opposed to the Eternity preceding birth.

three kinds of living existence, God, Man, and Beast: Coleridge later variously attributed this view, but in particular to Augustine with special reference to the belief in angels; see above 4627 and n.

4634 17.209 Brande’s Journ…223: I.e. QJSLA Vol VI (1819), No ii pp. 20–31 and No 12 pp. 210–26, an article continued from Vol v (1818) No 10 pp 257–64, by C.F.Brisseau Mirbel on “Cryptogamous and Agamous Vegetation”, at this point discussing “Fungi, or Mushrooms”:

This division, like the lichens and hypoxyleae, differs from every other in the shape, aspect, and peculiar nature of the species which compose it. Impressed with this variance, the Botanists of former days imagined that mushrooms were the spontaneous offspring of fermentation and putrefaction. They admitted without scruple the doctrine, that organized existences might be produced by apposition of particles of matter (moleculae), just in the manner of unorganized bodies; a doctrine which could only be broached during a total ignorance of the fundamental principles of animal and vegetable physiology…. The period came when it was no longer permitted to the enlightened naturalist to allow of the possibility of equivocal or fortuitous generations, in face of species established by the analogy and agreement of individual existences, endowed in their races with a constant mutual resemblance. This great task has been accomplished by the botanists of the present day, with a perseverance that reflects honour on their success.

Fungi in general are of a very soft consistence; they grow either upon the ground, or under the ground, or in water, upon either living or dead vegetables, and numerous other substances of various natures. Almost all affect shade and moisture. They are extremely diversified in colour, but none are of an herbaceous green. No oxygen is given out by them under water: some transpire hydrogen gas, others acid carbonic gas; most of them dissolve easily, and undergo putrid fermentation. Chemistry has obtained several azotized products from them, such as albumine, osmazone, adipocire, a fatty matter, and a peculiar substance termed fungine by M.Braconnot. Some contain a kind of sugar, capable of crystallization.

The forms of the mushrooms are extremely various, representing lobes, clubs, mitres, hats, bowls, branches of coral, powder-puffs, manes, carding instruments, strips of parchment, the scum that rises upon standing water, &c. &c.; many are furnished with radical fibres, others have none at all.

QJSLA VI (1819) 222–4.

f128 propagula: Slips, or layers, shoots used for propagation. Cf OED propagule.

ramenta: OED ramentum (2) “A thin membraneous scale formed on the surface of leaves and stalks”.

Uredo (Veg.) and the Volvox (anim): Ibid VI 225:

In Uredo…groups of germs…so like what we see in Volvox that…we should be tempted to rank under the same generic head, the Uredo which belongs to the vegetable division of creation, and Volvox, which ranks in the animal division among the animalculae, peculiar to infusions.

Coleridge was interested in mushrooms because their obscure mode of reproduction and their relatively high nitrogen content, suggesting kinship with animal life, made them difficult to classify.

pantogamic: The adjectival form is not in OED, from pantogamy, “communal marriage”.

children of the Air, &c, last §. p. 294. This refers to the same Journal Vol V (1818), “Report of Mr. Brande’s Lectures on Mineralogical Chemistry”:

While we are considering the possibility of these considerations it may be remembered, that in the great laboratory of the atmosphere, chemical changes may happen, attended by the production of iron and other metals; that at all events such a circumstance is within the range of possible occurrences; and that the meteoric bodies which thus salute the earth with stony showers, may be children of the air, created by the union of simpler forms of matter. The singular relationship between iron and nickel, and magnetism, and the uniform influence of meteoric phenomena upon the magnetic needle, should be taken into the account in these hypotheses.

QJSLA V 294–5

Mirbel’s own remarks on Linnaeus’s assertions: Ibid V 258–9:

The philosophy of Linnaeus was far from being untainted with prejudice, any more than that of so many others. Instead of sifting and discussing the theories of those who preceded him, he laid it down as an axiom, that the law of regeneration in vegetables was necessarily the same throughout the whole system. It was he that devised and brought into use the term cryptogamous plants. He applied it indiscriminately to those species where he obtained some indistinct view of sexual organs, and to others where he never had the slightest glimpse of any. His doctrine was, that every organized being is endowed with the faculty of propagating itself either by egg or by seed; that an egg or a seed could not be produced without impregnation; and consequently, no organized being is destitute of male or female organs, though these may not be discernible by the eye of the observer. Subsequent investigations have however led to the opinion, that there do exist organized beings that produce neither egg or seed; and that others possess these means of multiplying themselves independently of previous impregnation; and most botanists of the present day agree, that the presence of sexual organs in many species included by Linnaeus in his cryptogamous class of vegetables, is any thing but proved.

f128^v No Mushroom of an herbaceous green…: See for this paragraph and the next the extract from QJSLA VI 223–4 quoted above.

On Braconnot’s Fungine see 5266 where, with fuller details, Coleridge appears to have returned to the subject.

Now the tuberous root of the Truffle: Ibid VI 224:

We have already said that the peridium often constitutes the whole plant; an example of this is the truffle, a thick fleshy irregular shaped lump, resembling a tuberous root, multiplied by its seminula being set free by the dissolution of the whole substance.

So see p. 225 No. XII: QJSLA VI 225 reads:

The genera Uredo, Oecidium, and Puccinia, are intestinal fungi, and grow no where but within the cellular texture of plants. They represent in the vegetable kingdom, the Hydatides, Taeniae, Tetragulae, Ascarides, and other worms which live in the bodies of animals. There is this distinction however between the two, that the intestinal worms never appear outwardly, while the intestinal fungi pierce the epidermis under which they originate, and complete their growth in the open air. The manner in which this sort of mushrooms disseminate themselves is still a problem. There can be no doubt but that their impalpable seminula are introduced under the epidermis from without; but how? here the difficulty lies. Are they introduced with the moisture absorbed by the roots from the earth, carried forwards by the circulation of the sap, and deposited in that part of the texture which is exposed to the light; or do they penetrate directly through the epidermis, by the almost inperceptible pores with which it is so thickly perforated? This seems the most probable opinion. In whatever way we explain this phenomenon, keeping always clear of the theory of fortuitous reproductions, it stands an irrefragable proof of the wonderful divisibility of organized and living matter.

When Coleridge objected here to Theory tyrannizing over Theory he seems to have been protesting the theoretical assumption behind the phrase fortuitous re-productions as begging the question of new or renewed generation; his interest in whether new races may spring up, and old races de noυo is seen in e.g. 4548, 4866.

f129 Soepissime…ubique: “Very often is not always, nor almost everywhere, everywhere.”

The possibility of an 1825 date for this entry and 4636 from the same N 17, is raised by the relation of each to 1825 entries in F°; see 4636n, 5266.

4635 17.220 AP 157. This entry and 4636 are on the same pages as the 1805 entries CN II 2523–2524, 2652–2655; but clearly much later.

The Geometrical Stair-case with…Landing-Places, familiar from The Friend, appears again in an annotation on Kant’s essay, Der einzig mög-liche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseyns Gottes; see CM under Kant VS (Copy C) II note on a back fly-leaf to 92, 93.

4636 17.221 I by itself + He…subject on itself as Object—therefore in the 3^rd person: Cf CN III 4186. Possibly a thought suggested by Kant’s Anthropologie, of which Coleridge had the first two editions, 1798, 1800. The former with annotations (some by Coleridge, some J.H. Green’s?) badly cropped in an early rebinding is now in the library of the University of Nagoya, Japan. A note on p 4, most of it cropped off, ends with the words: “which he ever heard applied…Self.—The αυτοσι ανηρ [i]ntenser Eγω”.

In the second edition (see CN III 4181n) a note by Coleridge on p 4, and Kant’s statement that provoked it, is relevant here. Kant says (tr) “It is, however, strange, that the child, although already able to speak fairly well, first begins to use ‘I’ fairly late, perhaps a year later. Up to then, it speaks in the third person (Charles wants to eat, walk, etc.), and a light seems to dawn on it when it begins to speak in the first person, from which day onwards it never again returns to the former manner of speaking.—Up to then, it only felt itself, now it thinks itself. The explanation of this phenomenon might well cause some difficulty to an anthropologist.”

STC: “I am not disposed to deny this position; but the fact (3rd Person vice Ist in a Child) is too easily solved by mere imitation to be admitted as a proof.” Cf 5280 f10^v and n.

I + He=Ye: I.e. the y of Ye is a light i or an unaspirated one; (tenuis, or ψιλον, can have both meanings).

Iotism is presumably the use of an initial iota (i or y sound); Coleridge coins Iψιλoν on the analogy of epsilon and upsilon. See 5090 f84 and n. Iotism is not in OED; iotize is there (1888).

the H is Eeta: I.e. the English capital H is identical with the Greek capital eta (H), so that IH becomes Ye.

Sentita or Sensa: From sentio, “feel”; sentita is Coleridge’s invented past participle, to mean, stressing the verb, “things sensed” as opposed to sensa, “sensations”. Cf 5189 and n, where the approach is less playful and etymological.

ος: i.e. = “he” or “who”.

ως, ωτoς: As Coleridge translated it, “Ear”. He probably had in mind also the Latin os, oris, “mouth”. Cf 4749.

4637 29.184 Were these further notes for a lecture (not used in this case) in the early 1818 series? A page is blank before this entry, which is followed on ƒ148 by the notes for the third lecture of that 1818 series (CN III 4388). The Schlegel references seem to point this way, and raise some doubts whether this entry should not have been included in CN III.

Firm evidence for dating it is wanting, but at the foot of f148^v, Coleridge was writing in a small hand to squeeze his words into the space at the foot of the page. The next page, overleaf, was already occupied by his notes for Lect III (CN III 4388), an argument for dating this entry later. It does not seem to follow the lines of either the first or the second of the philosophical lectures, though as the first was but sketchily reported one cannot be clear about that. Coleridge did speak there about Solon, Thales, Homer, and early Greek culture. Lect I P Lects (CC) and Lect 2 ff5–7. The entry appears however to link in some respects with the educational scheme in 5254§ 5 on the history of Greece. These are condensed notes deriving largely from Friedrich Schlegel Geschichte der alten und neuen Litteratur Pt I (2 vols Vienna 1815). The first para-graph and one or two elements in the second possibly derive from Schlegel’s first lecture, the last few lines contain very broad ideas which may derive from his seventh.

Solon (rifattore di Omero): Solon (the editor/re-maker of Homer).

With Solon…Greece as a nation: Cf Schlegel I 25–7:

Tr: With Solon an entirely new epoch begins in Greek literature…. At the same time the philosophy of the Greeks began with Thales…Certainly they [the Iliad and the Odyssey]…must have originated…a long time before Solon; but they were first collected in Solon’s time, and it was in part by the agency of Solon himself that they were snatched from oblivion…and disseminated in their written version.

The reference to Thales suggests that if Coleridge was using Schlegel here he was working directly, and not from Lockhart’s unreliable translation of 1818. Lockhart omitted this passage. (See CN III 4384n).

the War of Greeks…: Again possibly Schlegel I 25–6:

Tr: With Alexander this happy period ended. Demosthenes, who perished with his fatherland in its final struggle for freedom, surviving the conqueror for only one year, was the last great Greek writer who had a powerful influence upon his nation as a nation. The Greeks remained a cultivated, intelligent people: under the Ptolemies in Egypt they became almost more scholarly and learned than they had been in their beautiful old homeland. Only they were no longer a nation, and when they lost their freedom, they also lost their inventiveness and the true soaring of their own spirit.

Is is only in a nation…that poetry, the fine arts…can arise: Not in Schlegel in so many words, though wholly in his spirit (I 15–16) and a conviction expressed variously by Coleridge e.g. in Lect 8 P Lects (CC) ff351–354.

υide Steff[ens]: The reference, if it is a specific one and not Coleridge’s aphorism, has not been located in those works of Steffens Coleridge is known to have read. Or was Coleridge referring to Steffens’s life (born as he was in Norway but choosing to live in various often French-occupied German states) as an example of how science is able to flourish in any political climate?

Greek-Asiatic Philosophy important in its influence on the Jews: I.e. the later Platonism. Schlegel wrote only of more general influences, and excluded the Asiatic element as influencing the Greeks and Romans; he did not mention the Jews.

their sweet language: See CN II 2964.

the Phoenicians: See 5307 and n.

an Alphabet: Cf Logic (CC) 15–16.

War under [?their] earlier king’s republican whence oratory (=Chili): Coleridge was writing quickly and elliptically, probably thinking of the early Greek kings and chieftains and their war-time oratory, contentions for power and reputation, in the Iliad I and II. The reference to Chile that follows is closely associated with a history of Chile referred to in CN III 3789, where the historian Molina stressed the importance of oratory and uniformity of language in a large country like Chile, which [like Greece] had many small kingdoms. II 19, 101–3, 352. See CN III 3789n.

of the effects of genial climate on the organs of Speech: The idea may owe something to Schlegel (Lect VII) in the context of the decline of Gothic and the rise of High German (I 255–6). Cf:

Tr: This is how I explain the origin of the High German language. The German tribes which had originally dwelt mainly around the Baltic Sea developed changes in their language as they migrated towards the South, for example, the Goths who moved from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and founded a great empire there, living among many strange nations and even adopting single words from them. They developed a dialect of their own and a quite distinct langauge. In southern German, particularly in the Alpine regions, climatic influence of mountainous country had its usual effect in producing harsh tone and hard gutturals.

On the attribution of the chi and the theta to the Goths cf 5307 and n.

the digamma…the gnai of the Hebrews: See 4644 f28^v, 4765 f43 and n. See also Logic (CC) 25 and n.

Homer before Solon=Nibelungen: Cf Schlegel Lect VI (1218): “… there can be no doubt that…something of the Gothic heroic poems and much of those that Charlemagne collected and arranged, as Solon did those of Homer, have survived in the Nibelungenlied.” Cf CN III 4384 ff151, 151^v and n.

4638 29.3 So far as physical position in the notebook goes, this entry like 4638, 5237, 5238, 5239, could have been written at various times. The ink is blacker than that of other entries on the page.

Street directories list James Gooden at 46 Woburn Place 1815–22. In July 1814 he visited RS in Keswick, having collected books and MSS for him in Brazil. S Letters (Curry) II 102–3. Gooden was known also to HCR. Coleridge’s first extant letter to him was written 14 January 1820 (by a slip of the pen Coleridge gave it the impossible “14 Jan 1814” date, manually repeating the 14). The MS of the letter, in Dr Williams’s library, is indubitably clear, but the Highgate postmark is 15 January 1820, and Coleridge spelled the address “Wooburn” as here.

4639 29.39 The entry is in an ink darker than those immediately before and after it.

Warmth midway upward to…Light [as antithesis to] W[armth] m[idway] downward from L[ight] towards Grav[itation]: See this material in the context of 4628 above and other “Compass of Nature” entries, e.g. 4555, 5090, 5092 and nn. See also TT 8 Aug 1831.

Zenith and Nadir are important here because the powers are seen in Coleridge’s productive anastatic system.

The difference qualitative: I.e. in the kind of underlying, producing power, not just in degree; see also 5103n, 5155n.

subinfime: “very lowest”, from sub and infimus, “lowest”.

Life…term…misappropriated to Vegetables: E.g. inter alios by Bichat; see related statements by Coleridge in 4617 and in entries referred to in 4553n. See also many related entries on the nature of life, e.g., 4677 and n, and TL esp 35–7, 40, 42, 44, 47–58. For Coleridge, vegetable life, represented by the power of reproduction but without “irritability” is different in kind from animal life.

Trieb: Cf Schelling Einleitung 290 (tr): “Every product is a finite, but the infinite productivity of Nature concentred in it must have the tendency [Trieb] towards infinite development.” Trieb was much used by many naturalists interested in a theory of life, e.g. Blumenbach (see CN III 3744n), a word and a concept Coleridge found useful; see also Triebfeder in CN III 3556 and n. And some poetic links are collected in 4926n.

W[armth] anterior to L[ife]=Vegetable…: In a letter of Sept 1817 to Tulk, Coleridge defined warmth as “the Indifference of Light and Gravitation” (CL IV 773); the discussion is generally pertinent to this entry. Steffens (Grundzüge 48) says that the total unification of the N-S and W-E polarities produces warmth.

Relation of Latent Heat &…Specific Gravity: See above 4628n.

Animal life a step higher than Solarity. See 4640 f23 and n.

Ergo, the Worlds not animantia as Giord[ano] Bruno holds them: I.e. not “living things”; Bruno refers to them as such often in De innumerabilibus, immenso et infigurabili. See CN I 927, 928 and nn.

Zamboni’s columns: In QJSLA (October 1819) VIII 177–80, “The New Voltaic Pile of Two Elements” by Giuseppe Zamboni was summarized, and evidence of electrical reactions cited. In the same number galvanism was frequently mentioned, and the fifth article was on the “Agency of Galvanism in the Animal Economy”. But the argument in the entry seems to lie in Coleridge himself.

f22^v Galυanism: In this context, galvanism is, as Coleridge suspected, what we should recognize as galvanic electricity, produced by the contact of two heterogeneous surfaces through the intermedium of an electrolyte as e.g. in a battery. Galυanism (after Luigi Galvani who in 1792 described electricity chemically produced) was still a loosely used term for a newly recognized phenomenon. It was discussed by John Bostock M.D. in perhaps the first monograph on the subject, An Account of the History and Present State of Galυanism (1818). Coleridge’s question whether galυanism may include two powers that will hereafter be known by proper names could arise from Bostock’s description (15) of the difference of opinion between Humboldt, who thought it “entirely a vital action…essentially connected with the living body”, and Galvani and Valli, who regarded it as a proper electrical phenomenon” and called it “animal electricity”.

On Coleridge’s further reading of Bostock see 5150; Bostock’s Physiology referred to there was perhaps a source of Coleridge’s double Heart, or the two chambers. In discussing respiration Bostock described the right and left ventricles (II 175–7) and the difference between arterial and venous blood. He also wrote at length about warmblooded and coldblooded animals and about “animal temperature”, II 243–310, but this was a subject dealt with by many physiologists at this time.

See also e.g. 4604 f42^v. Galvanism was also used in therapeutic contexts and entered seriously into theory-of-life discussions.

The question raised in the final sentence appears to originate with Coleridge.

4640 29.40 The entry originates in Coleridge’s continuing interest in reconciling Genesis I with contemporary science; at this point he is caught between the conflicting theories of Heinrich Steffens and C.A. Eschenmayer. The arguments are closely intertwined, but it seems clarifying to treat them separately in succession and not precisely in Coleridge’s order.

Multeity: Here used in a new context in this transcendental astronomy; cf CN III 4352, also 4545 f45, 4554, 4556, 4662, to cite but a few other uses.

<Lux> lucifutura: <Light> that is to become light ”

After Caloric the¹⁾ appears to have no consequent series.

a focus of the proper radiant heat…dilative conductible: In Eschenmayer’s theory, each star is a focus of the aether, i.e. the focus of two rays of aether which had been dispersed by the star clouds. Similarly, Coleridge seems to regard each planet as a focus of heat radiating out from the sun. The radiant Heat of the present Epoch is presumably heat transmitted across spaces envisaging other temperatures in previous cosmic periods and in future ones.

Radiant Heat and dilative conductible heat are two modes of the action of heat, requiring distinct dynamic descriptions, i.e. descriptions in terms of powers, which Coleridge does not offer but is seeking. Dilative conductible heat is heat in a body, i.e. a power, and thus not at all to be equated with caloric, a fluid.

Coleridge seems at first in this entry to be looking at Eschenmayer for answers to Steffens, but then come a series of running reflexions on Heinrich Steffens’s essay Ueber die Bedingung der Möglichkeit einer innern Naturgeschichte der Erde in Geognostischgeologische Aufsätze 268–75. There are some relevant annotations by Coleridge on these pages of his copy in the BM. The heart of Steffens’s theory is couched in his question (268): “What if the history of the formation of the earth co-incided with the history of the development of the planetary system?” Steffens (269) like Coleridge raised the possibility of the mutual interdependence of the planets, rather than their entire dependence upon the sun; he did not raise Coleridge’s issue of radiant heat.

Steffens’s enormous Years & seasons are the consequence of his assuming a different rhythm of the earth’s rotation round the sun due to a different angle of relation between the two in those ancient formative times (tr 272–3): “given the slower movement of the earth which we have assumed, both the summer and the winter would last longer in each hemisphere…”.

According to Steffens (273–4) this accounts, as Coleridge here points out, for the facts of huge strata of vegetable Origin with equal strata of mere mineral action intervening.

Calor lucifuturus: “Heat that is to become light”.

f23 Coleridge’s geological facts in the next paragraph, “the vegetable remains, chiefly found in the Regions toward the pole” are referred to (without his specification of palmtribe and fern) in Steffens (270) as evidence wholly justifying his theory that the angle of relation between the sun and the earth was different in the ancient aeons:

Tr: And if the geognost proceeds to find traces of perfect equatorial vegetation in northern regions, moreover in a definite relationship to definite mountain formations, he is wholly justified in concluding all that follows [i.e. the theory outlined above], and in this way sets limitations to empirical astronomy without allowing it to prescribe unnatural limitations to himself.

One such “unnatural limitation” that Steffens refers to is Laplace’s determination of the cyclical obliquity of the poles, which Steffens spec-ifies does not exceed 1° 29 (271) but he proceeds to disregard this in proposing far wider angles of oscillation for ancient times. Coleridge’s comment, either these Vegetables were anterior to the Solar System…or seems to rest on his accepting Laplace, and hence criticising Steffens’s argument. Coleridge’s marginal note in pencil extends from 270 to 272:

Most interesting (to me) to observe, how close Steffens is to the truth, how like the balls in an Electric Machine he is snatched towards it, and like them in the next instant flies off again. Still the Sun is at work as in praesenti—with Summer, winter, Spring and Autumn—only we must interpret them sensu apocalyptico, days=years, and years heaven knows how long!—Hence, as in all half truths, contradictions and sturdy assertions. Thus the assertion (foot of 270, last L but 3) is not tenable: since for aught we know the same effect might have been produced by a greater density of the Atmosphere, and generally by a constitution of things more favourable to the reception of Heat, as Schubart has well shown.—Still, however, Steffens’s Hauntings of the Idea confirm me who had matured it in my mind long before I was aware of any such coincidence, and who had arrived at it by a road altogether different.

I take the contrary: See 4639, 4652 for Coleridge’s discontent with Steffens’s derivation of Kepler’s laws, and in his disillusionment with the Identitäts-lehre he began to seek a new method; see 4662.

Eschenmayer’s fanciful derivation of the sun: C.A.Eschenmayer in his Psychologie (Stuttgart and Tübingen 1817) § 448, § 460—see CN III 4435 f26^v, 4436 f22^v and nn— argued (453) for what Coleridge calls planetary plurality—that no star was without its circle of planets. Furthermore, that every solar system had a central body which governed the whole, and determined the distances, paths, and speeds of the other bodies. This established the principle of a Naturzentrum, as the ordering principle for physical bodies, and indeed “a necessary causality of Nature” (457). Mathematically, it could be demonstrated that there need be no body at the Naturzentrum in order for it to function. Therefore it was not simply a matter of equilibrium between bodies, but rather the theory of a centre containing the rules for each particular relation in the system and from which the action of the whole system proceeded (454). There was much in this scheme to recommend it to Coleridge, though some of his marginalia on the Psychologie are negative—especially on the fantasy elements (487, 488, 490). But whereas Eschenmayer identified the Naturzentrum (f23) with the objectification of the free causality of Will, Steffens’s system Coleridge had rejected as pantheistic, and because it did not make room for creativity, God, and chaos. Eschenmayer’s Naturzentrum, on the other hand, contained the triplicity of three cosmic forces, Light, Heat, and Gravity, which enabled Coleridge to get at these three fundamental forces of Nature Philosophy without using the Identitâtslehre. Light, for Eschenmayer, was the objectivication of freedom.

f22^v the Ellipse having been previously shown to be necessary: Eschenmayer said (544), “The Ellipse is another image of the whole, and we find the chief features of our system in it.” On Eschenmayer’s astronomy, see 4633n.

The distances of the planets might be fixed…: This follows from an inner proportion which lies in the action of the sun (ibid 547–54). This force is subject to fluctuations, though caused in part by the conjunction and opposition of the planets. It is completely chemical in nature, and proportional to the quality of the mass (e.g. heat) and not to the quantity of the mass (e.g. gravity). (On quantity as the ground of quality see Coleridge 4515.) This force is related to Magnetism, Electricity, and Galvanism in the same way that heat is related to them: and it is this force which causes variation.

Here was the jumping-off place for Coleridge’s must there not have been…a prior oscillation (f22^v). The oscillations of a force which governed chemical and ipso facto biological activity, would have meant that the production of various forms of life should have correlated with changes in the distances between the planets (Kant’s tidal friction). Hence the facts of huge strata of vegetable origin with equal strata of mere mineral action intervening, referred to by Steffens, did not require, in Eschenmayer’s scheme, the regular periods of fruition, imagined by Steffens.

In Coleridge’s view, it was the creation of the vegetables which established the present fixed relation between the planets. The energy which once caused them to fluctuate being stored up in the coal beds of the earth etc. Moreover, it seems that Coleridge thought of this process as occurring in conjunction with the creation of the sun rather than after it (f23). The sun was a by-product of the introsusception and rejection of the mass of light which became focussed at the centre.

The anticipations of Titius & Schubart: Titius is the name of many prominent German nature historians but probably Coleridge refers to Johann Daniel Titius and his Lehrbegriff der Naturgeschichte zum ersten Unterrichte (Leipzig 1777). Here Titius began with the physical world and proceeded through mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms. His §§ 20–23, in which he discusses the variations in the effects of fire and heat from the sun and in various bodies at various distances, might be taken as “anticipations” (though scarcely scientific in presentation), Titius being mainly concerned about the Zusammenhang of its cosmos and everything in it in one harmonious system. Forty years later G.H.Schubert’s Allgemeine Naturgeschichte (Erlangen 1826), which Coleridge annotated, proceeds on a similar plan but in much greater detail, with sect ii on the system of the fixed stars, iii on the sun and the planets, and iv and v on the physiognomy and the history of the earth’s crust. Schubert writes tentatively about contemporary knowledge of the planetary system, but he compares the planets (including the sun), in sect iii, § 12, to apples of different sizes on one tree, by which analogy, apparently Coleridge assumes, it is impossible to tell which, the larger or smaller, would come to ripeness first. Allgemeine Naturgeschichte 91–107. But Coleridge writes critically of Schubert on a front fly-leaf of his copy of this work in the BM: “One great defect meo saltem judicio, of Schubert’s System or Scheme of Thought is the sort of contrasted divinity which he assigns to Light, and quasi proprio quodam jure, to the Solar Light or Atmosphere. But throughout Schubert too much confounds the powers and the eternal Laws, that are the conditions of the actualization of the Powers”.

Dilative-Contractive…Contractive-Dilative: See also 4564 and 4659 and nn. The relations of these powers continues to be a central concern for Coleridge; see esp 4811. On contractility see 5150.

f23^v Vegetable Creation is clearly the passage from Magnetism to Electricity …Animals are a potenziated Galυanism (M[agnetism] + E[lectricity]: This is virtually a statement of one of Steffens’s principal theses in his Beyträge, developed throughout the whole work. See also 4028 above and cf 4617 and 4825.

relation of the Insect world to man: Cf “So…ought I to be talking to Hartley!—and sometime to detail all the insects that have acts or implements resembling human/the Sea snails…the wheel Insect…”. CN ii 2538 f63. Coleridge had resolved (CN I 959 and n, II 2538 and n) to begin Hartley’s education with natural history.

Moses…interposes…post poses, the Insect Creation: On the fifth day “God created…every living creature that moveth” (Genesis 1:21), and yet on the sixth day, “God made…everything that creepeth upon the earth…” (Genesis 1:25)—immediately before he made man.

the law of Tripolarity…Brugmann, Hamberger and Van Schwinden: See Eschenmayer Psychologie (253) and his discussion of “Organic aether”, where he refers to these scientists and says “We can observe the whole nervous system under the laws of magnetism, electricity and galvanism”:

Tr: We can consider the entire nervous system under the laws of magnetism, electricity and galvanism; be that as it may, our measure must still be the general proportion of+0− represented in every order. In this way we arrive at a regular sequence of changes to which under certain conditions the nervous system is subject, and which we can include in the collection of dynamic laws of life. It can be seen particularly clearly in the alternation of polar attraction and indifference which Hamburger, Brugmanns, van Schwinden and others have demonstrated in physical magnetism, and which, applied by analogy to the brain and the nervous system, allows us a glimpse into the inner nature of animal magnetism.

Cf also TL 87 foll. On Tripolarity see also 4784, 5143, 5155, 5290 and nn.

Electricity recalled into Magnetism, or Magnetism impregnated by Electricity: I.e. the interaction of the NS (magnetism) and the WE (electricity) in the Compass of Nature. See also the Synthesis…of Magnetism and Electricity 4814, also 4896, 4929 and nn.

4641 29.41 Coleridge’s Vol. I. p. 51 of the Marcus and Schelling Jahrbücher der Medicin als Wissenschaft is a slip for Vol. III. Pt I. 51. (the BM has his annotated copy of Vols I-III bound together). See CN III 3764, 3980 nn for the use of this work and this volume.

Coleridge’s opening lines are a précis of A.F.Marcus Versuch einer Theorie der Entzündung “An Essay towards a Theory of Inflammation” of which Chap 4 deals with “external influences”. Coleridge questioned at this page (III 51) Marcus’s view, in discussing the inner and outer organism as being really one, that every change in the atmosphere affecting one affects the other, that

Tr: So-called external Nature, in causing disease in the organism, is in this case subject to the same conditions. A storm is a fever in the atmosphere, just as there are fevers in the organism which we call our own. This atmospheric fever undergoes the same impulses as the other fever we know by that name.

It has its impulse of cold, of heat, and of water-production. The lastnamed is probably the same as sweat in human beings. Everything happens here according to the same laws, the difference lies only in the organic structure. If it did not sound paradoxical, we might well maintain that there is no fever we are subject to, which the atmosphere does not also suffer. Plague and yellow fever are to be found in the atmosphere before they reach our organism.

Coleridge protests:

If not wholly false it can be true only under multiform and manifold exceptions & conditions: or every organized Being would be ill at the same time in the same district.

Coleridge seems to have allowed nothing for individual susceptibility and resistance. He objected to quarantine—but perhaps chiefly on account of the physical conditions of the place of confinement; see CN III 3730 and n. See also 5143 for an interest in inflammation.

the body diseasing the Atmosphere…: Ibid 52 (tr): “…as we infect the atmosphere so it infects us”. Marcus went on to discuss contagion, the Black Hole, poor hospitals, etc.

Let the Atmosphere be taken as an organism…: I.e. the inorganic world as participating in the life of nature; see TL e.g. 39–40, 42–6.

zoophyte: The old term for forms of life between plant and animal was used by Coleridge in CN III 3476, pejoratively in CN III 3281.

our late dear old King: George III died 29 Jan 1820; Coleridge thus provides a date for this entry some time between 30 Jan and 5 Feb 1820.

do not the diseases of Spring differ from those of Autumn…: Jahrbücher ibid 53 discussed the link between weather and seasons and diseases, arguing that it is not heat or cold, even when prolonged, that bring disease, but changeableness in weather. The point involved in Coleridge’s question was not raised.

4642 29.42 Michael Scott, the Person: More usually, Michael Scot, on whom Coleridge’s fullest statement is in TT 16 Feb 1833, where he was discussed at length as a better subject for a drama than Faustus. In 4690 Scot is referred to the Edward I time (c 1239–1307) rather than that of Wickliff (c 1365). The disparity is slight for the shaky chronology of the period but might indicate the sources of Coleridge’s reading on Scot, about whom the historical facts are negligible, and dates especially are wildly various. He appears in most histories and commentaries on magic.

Homo Agonistes…personificatum): “Man as Agonistes, the essence which personates/sounds through (or is personified/made to sound through).”

Agonistes originally meant Competitor, then Champion applied to Christ especially, to martyrs, champions of the faith, or to the faithful. Cf a note on Milton’s Samson Agonistes in Milton Poems ed J.Carey and A.Fowler (1968) 331. Coleridge was frequently in later years to use this play on the derivation of person and the concept of persona, a mask, as used by ancient actors to enhance features and magnify voices. Cf e.g. the Pipe ad per-sonandum in 5244 f34.

The advantage over D^r Faustus: It may be relevant to notice that the first article in the London Magazine for Aug 1820 (II 125–42) was “Goethe and his Faustus”; it tells the story of the 16th-century Dr John Faustus. Coleridge said he did not see any numbers of this magazine until Nov–Dec 1820 at Lamb’s (CL V 125) but no doubt the subject was discussed in his circle and is undatable for him.

Prelude—Interpretation of the Bible: The young Coleridge (1796) thought the senses were to be overcome or disciplined in the individual and the race, an educational process in which

Fancy is the power That first unsensualises the dark mind

lines 80–1 Destiny of Nations: PW I 134. He came to see the senses as having an essential constructive part in the understanding; see e.g. the end of 4541. Hence presumably the possible use of magic in early instruction?

superscientific: OED gives no use before 18 81.

The Parable of the Garden—to be fenced: Did Coleridge intend to use the garden of Isaiah 5:1–7? He appears here to be paraphrasing and conflating more than one passage.

4643 29.43 Good Friday March [31] 1820…Peter’s more sure word of Prophecy: 2 Peter 1:19: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy”. (AV). The Greek reads καì βεβαιóτερον λóγον. The meaning turns on the grammatical function of βεβαιóτερον (“more sure”), i.e. whether the sentence is correct in AV or means, as Coleridge and many scholars think, “And we have the prophetic word [made] more certain”, i.e. that Christ’s mission referred to in the preceding verses, fulfils the words of the prophets. Cf similar views in marginalia on Donne LXXX Sermons 59 and Skelton Works 318: CM II, IV.

4644 29.44 The entry has much the same physical appearance as 4642 (Feb–Mar); 4643 of Good Friday March 1820 was written, at the foot of the page, later than 4642 and possibly also after this entry. The first part of the entry only is printed here, it being preliminary to an attempted Greek grammar, the text of which will appear in SWF. This introduction well illustrates Coleridge’s interest in words and logic and is linked to his sense of the wider importance of them in philosophy and religion.

ut sciamus nos scire: “that we may know that we know”.

f25^v God is a most pure Act: Coleridge in CN III had resolved his difficulty in thinking of an act or action in connexion with God (CN I 1072 and n); see CN III 3974, 4265 and n, 4359; also below 4907, 5143, 5241 f30. For the meaning of pure Act see below (f26), “an Absolute Will or…as the Absolute eternal Source”.

αυτοπατηρ, αυτουιος, causa sui: “father of himself, son of himself, cause of himself’. On these Greek words see 4929n.

a fortiori: “with stronger reason”.

I am that I am…the literal sense of the Hebrew words: See 4523, 4671, 4702 and nn.

f26 Eternity is the…Condition of Time: On the fallacy of applying the accidents of Time to an Eternal, see an early awareness in CN I 334; also 4853 and n.

co-inherent, also below (f26^v) co-inherence: OED cites Coleridge and BL for both words.

argumentum in circulo: As Coleridge translates it below, “argument in a circle”.

f26^v Identity of Noun and Verb: The analysis here helps to explain how and why for Coleridge every process of language, logic, philosophy, and religion is related to every other.

per hypothesin…causâ: “by an imaginary hypothesis, for the sake of argument”.

A point producing itself into a bi-polar Line: See 4513, 4784 f128^v, 4843 and nn; also 4538.

1 Prothesis 2 Thesis 3 Antithesis 4 Synthesis: The diagram was compressed at the foot of f26^v above the footnote; it is clear enough in MS but impossible to represent in print. A semicolon has been substituted for a dash (or a fullstop) after preferable, and but Identity contrasts better with INDIFFERENCE has been given the extra line for which there was no space on the MS page.

As Coleridge enjoined below on f27^v <N.B. For the explanation of these Terms, Prothesis, Thesis, &c. turn back to p. 5, at this end of the Book.—turn to 4513 f5. f27 Verb subsfantive: Cf Logic (CC) Ixvi for theological implications.

These seven are tabled overleaf: I.e. on f27^v, Identity etc. The reference to the explanation of the Terms, Prothesis, Thesis &c, on p. 5 at this end of the Book is to 4513 f5; see 4513n. The implication is that the notebook had already been used from the other end; see N 29 Gen N in CN III.

f28 “For not to dip the Hero in the Lake…”: Spenser, The Ruins of Time, lines 429–30.

Quoted also in Logic (CC) Intro Chap I § 20, possibly from James Harris Hermes: or a Philosophical Inquiry concerning Universal Grammar (1751); see Logic (CC) 17n3. See also CM III under Irving Sermons I annotation 2 and Lacunza Coming of the Messiah annotation 45.

in while: For “in which”, as noticed on the manuscript in another hand.

the House of Caius withstanding him: “Withstanding” qualifies Caius. Ambiguous and elliptical in English, this construction is practicable in Latin and Greek.

f28^v For Coleridge in this entry from here onwards the preoccupation was mainly with Greek grammar and comparative phonetics and linguistics. See 4697.

4645 28.4 With this statement of “the Coleridgian Faith and Doctrine concerning God, the World and Man” cf CN III 4005. The entry gives useful indications of the method behind Coleridge’s interest in chemistry.

Theosophy: Cf 5406 and n. Coleridge’s most sympathetic references to it are to be found in his marginalia on Boehme. See a note referring with approval to “Theosophy from Heraclitus (500 A.C.) to S.T.C. (1817 P.C.) …”: CM I under Boehme Works I i 55.

Zöonomy: A natural verbal progression from Erasmus Darwin’s Zoonomia; cf the first recorded appearances in Thomas Forster Sketch of the New Anatomy of the Brain and Nerυous System of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim considered as comprehending a complete System of Zoonomy (1815). Did Coleridge know this work, first published in the Pamphleteer No IX? Forster does not define the term precisely but evidently means the study of man as an animal with special attention to his distinctive features, the brain and nervous system, on the phrenological principles of Spurzheim.

Anthropology: Coleridge appears to use this word in the general sense (de homine) common in his time, not in the later, more restricted application (OED after 1860) to the races of mankind.

Conversations…1817–1820: Probably the Thursday evening classes; see CL V 28, and the Logic (CC) Introduction xliv-liv.

two red books elder…bought at M^r Bage’s: N 27 is identifiable by the Bage label in the upper corner of the inside back cover, but the other Bage book has disappeared. Possibly it was either N 31 or N 32, both of which were missing from the series in Dec/Jan 1930/31 when the first descriptive list was made at Ottery St Mary.

D^r Thomson: Thomas Thomson; see 4873 and n.

M^r Brande: See 4560n.

Hatchett: See 4580 and n.

potenziation: Potentiate is attributed by OED to Coleridge Chap 12 BL (CC) I 287, potentiated to a lecture on Shakespeare, and potenziation to J.H.Green in Vital Dynamics (1840).

insulated Life…: I.e. life in specific form, phenomena which, according to Coleridge’s “principle of individuation” TL (42–3), have separated themselves as realizations or products of life as a power. In a note on Steffens Beyträge 170–3 (on a back fly-leaf), Coleridge criticised the Naturphilosophen for overlooking the difference between the “attractive or negative magn [etism]” and the “Contractive=insulating Power”, or “negative Elect[ricity]”. This principle he applied to σζ~(vegetation) and σζ…(animal life), as well as to rock crystals, in fact up through all the strata of organized energy, mineral, vegetable, and animal.

concluded with the Teeth and Bones: Cf 4580 f99.

Chemists and Galυanists of the existing Scottish and Anglo-Gallican… School: Including such electro-chemists as Davy, Brande, and Thénard.

4646 28.5 the preceding P.B… and the other I.e. N 27 and another now missing; see 4645 f2^v and n.

CHYME. Saliva: See 4541 and 4559; also CN III 4363–4364, though these last hardly answer to a chemical analysis. In a late notebook (56.3) Coleridge described chyme and chyle as “the first Products of Assimilation”.

Much of what Coleridge says here is in Brande’s Manual 460–4.

Coleridge’s interest in saliva (see also 4514) was probably stimulated by Gillman’s work on hydrophobia (published in 1812 and being revised in October 1824); see CL V 375, 378, 386.

Coleridge also displayed an interest in snake venom (see 4719) and its relations to saliva.

Sir E.Home’s Lectures: Everard Home Lectures on Comparative Anatomy, in which are explained the Preparations in the Hunterian Collection (I, II 1814; III and IV 1823; V and VI 1828). Lects IX and X of the first course of lectures, delivered in the spring of 1810, dealt with the stomach and the two processes of secretion. Lects III and IV of the second course in 1813, were on the digestive organs of birds; here the ostrich family of Java (cassowaries) and of Africa were compared, with much stress on their significance as illustrating the adaptation of anatomy to food supply and mode of life. On this subject see an earlier interest, in CN II 2325.

f4 alter’d: The same joke and pun in CN III 4301 suggests that the philosophic friend is the same as the one who wrote the letter to the author of BL reported in Chap XIII.

the paronomastic art: on Coleridge’s interest in puns and punning see CN III 3542, 3762, 4444 and nn; and for another example of his enjoyment of this kind of wit, see 4748.

Natura Naturans… Punstresse Diapata the Diva Diapanta Punifica: “Creative Nature…Divine Punstress through all”, the divine All-punstress, as Coleridge in part translates it.

Natura Naturata: “Created Nature”; see above 4521 f89^v and n.

vere rebusin rebus: “truly a rebus in things”; see f7^v below.

CHYLE: condensed from Brande Manual 462–3, except for the query concerning the double-taste mixed not united.

LymphI.e. 4580.

f4^v Hatchett’s admirable communication…Phil Trans: In his Lectures referred to above, in Lect IV of the first series, Home said,

It is to Mr Hatchett that we are indebted for our present knowledge of the chemical analysis of these different substances [shell and bone] which throws so much light upon their structure, and enables us to arrange them into a beautiful series, containing first those composed of animal matter and carbonate of lime; then those in which the hardening matter is principally carbonate of lime, but to which is added a small portion of phosphate of lime; afterwards others, in which the earth is almost wholly phosphate of lime, but still with a small portion of carbonate of lime.

I 60–1.

f4^v But Home reported many of Hatchett’s communications, e.g. in Phil Trans Vol 96 for 1806 Pt II, 372–6.

Brande, Hatchett, and Home shared their findings informally, and Home records in Lectures on Comparative Anatomy (1828) 14–15 that in 1812 he, Charles Hatchett, Sir Humphry Davy, Brande, Brodie, and Mr Children formed an “Animal Chemistry” society, with Hatchett as president and Brande as secretary. Coleridge may well have known whose observations were the source of any published paper.

f5 Brande’s statement: Manual 462–3.

Bichat: Was Coleridge going to look into M.F.X.Bichat Traité d’anatomie descriptive (Paris 1814)? Or Bichat’s Anatomie général etc (4 vols Paris 1812)? Or into Thomas Rennell’s summary in his answer to Bichat, Remarks on Scepticism (1819)? See on the last 4617, 4825 and nn. Or was he going to Rees’s Cyclopaedia (CN III 3855n), the article on “Life”, in which Bichat is much discussed; see 4517 and n.

Blumenbach: If Coleridge examined Blumenbach he would have found some discussion of Chyle in Institutiones Physiologicae (Göttingen 1798) tr John Elliotson The Institutions of Physiology (1817) 205–6, but not in so much detail as he already had.

n (“nitrogen”): Albumen and chyle are rich in nitrogen,—a commonplace by 1819. Coleridge wants to know if nitrogen is passed to chyle as nitrogen or produced there.

f6 mice…[in] a bason of caustic Alkali at the Royal Institution: Particularly if Coleridge saw the gelatinous mass, he would be reminded of Nostoc, in old Bailey’s Dictionary and the experience he connected with it; see CN I 1703 and n.

f6^v “hypotheses of so chimerical a cast…“as rather to resemble Eastern Allegories”: Brande in Outlines of Geology (1817) 19—reprinted in his Manual 480—after a rude and caustic sketch of the theories of Burnet, Woodward, Leibnitz, Whiston, Whitehurst and Buffon, Kirwan, De Luc, and others, says there are more geological writers he might discuss but “their general hypotheses are of so chimerical a cast, as rather to resemble Eastern allegories than European philosophy; they defy all crit-icism…. These are the inventions of Professor Werner of Freyburgh and Dr Hutton of Edinburgh”. Brande goes on to describe the Huttonian and Neptunian theories. See 4653 and n.

O Endive and Cellery of European and R.I.Philosophy: Coleridge was jibbing at the dilettanti, provincial English and European attitudes towards philosophy and science, which even in the Royal Institution cannot endure a ray of light.

palates of Lords and learned Ladies: Is Coleridge accusing Brande of subordinating science to society in the burning contemporary conflict over whether scientific societies should be run by patronage or the scientists themselves?

like a cucumber: Cf Gullivers Travels Bk III Chap 5.

(“carbon”)… (“nitrogen”): The lungs were generally in 1819 regarded even by Brande (Manual 465) as the part of the body where a portion of the oxygen in the atmospheric air inspired was saturated with carbon, but Brande and others did not consider that the body absorbed either oxygen or nitrogen. Cf 4854 and n.

while M^r Ellis bars up one door (the pulmonary)…Brande and Brodie stultify the other…: Daniel Ellis An Inquiry into the Changes Induced in Atmospheric Air (Edinburgh 1807) 5, 72 argued that there was no absorption of atmospheric nitrogen by plants.

Brodie: Benjamin Collins Brodie (1783–1862) apparently agreed with Davy and Brande that nitrogen was not absorbed from the soil. If the experimentalists were correct in their negative findings, nitrogen had to be produced by some action within the plant. Chemistry was totally unable to account for nitrogen fixation, and Coleridge was acute in seizing on the weakness.

f7^v “Eastern Allegory”: Referring sarcastically to the phrases from Brande quoted above.

in the next article on Respiration: I.e. Brande Manual 466. Brande wrote that in respiration the colour of the blood changes because of the “action of the air” on it

through the “thin coats of the circulating vessels”. Coleridge was quick to pick up the inconsistency of this in atomistic, corpuscular terms, for one thing cannot pass through another. For him the process was rather a dynamic one exercising powers rather than things.

f8 On Newton’s Progression of Pores: See an early entry, CN I 93 and n.

“in the Lion’s skin of mathematical calculation”: A Midsummer Night’s Dream III i.

f8^v Florentine Globe of Gold: A museum piece in Florence; see 4832 f61.

even the Caloric is in Jeopardy: If it is a thing, i.e. an atomistic fluid, it is threatened by what is emerging; see 5144 and n.

f9 υ enous blood: Brande Manual 468 (§ 901) refers to Brodie in Phil Trans CII (1812) 379–93.

f9^v Abdera: According to Strabo, in Thrace, on the Nestos, just north of Thasos; the city was famous as the birthplace of Leucippus and his pupil Democritus, founders in the 5th century B.C. of the atomic philosophy; it was notorious among the Greeks for the dullness of its inhabitants. See EOT (CC) II 304 n 3.

au désespoir: “to the point of desperation”.

sine Rebus in Rebus: “without Things in Things”; see above f4.

Rebuses: See an early distaste for them in CN I 475 and n.

the Lady Chem’stresses, the fair auditory of the Royal Institution…

Things in Things: As he said above, Coleridge hated the ubiquitarian Thing, but he was not often given to such bitter outbursts about women. Had he recently been to a lecture—a Friday Evening Discourse—at the Royal Institution when some of the ladies in the social converse afterwards, aroused his scorn?

things “remain…hidden from our view”: Brande Manual 469 on the generation of animal heat.

Zoodynamism, and the Life of Nature: Zoodynamism is Coleridge’s coinage for the kind of vitalism of which he became more firmly the proponent from about 1817 onwards. See a letter to Tulk of Sept 1817 (CL IV 775) and one to Green of 30 Sept 1818 (CL IV 873–6); The Friend (CC) I 492–5, esp the note on John Hunter, I 493. The attack here is on those who like Davy had become converts to Dalton’s atomism, but for at least a year, Sept 1817–Sept 1818 Coleridge had been struggling with the Scylla and Charybdis of the Schellingians on one hand who made Nature absolute, and abstraction a principle, and the various sorts of mechanists on the other. Zoodynamism was his answer to both. See CN III 4449, 4450 and nn.

4647 28.6 The last paragraph of the entry is written in pencil, with a few words overtraced in ink similar to the rest of the entry. Did someone borrow his pen for a few moments?

Davy, Brande, &c, cannot die [deny?] that vital Powers exist: The slip is of interest in itself, and the conjunction of names in this context. By this time (c 1820) Coleridge was disillusioned about Davy, who had, he thought, abandoned his earlier Vitalist position and become “an Atomist”. See CN III 4221 and n; also a note on Boehme Works 1 i 43 in CM.

f10^v The powers, called vital…the powers called physical: Cf Davy’s “An Essay on Heat, Light, and the combinations of Light” (1799): D Works III 84: “Life, then, may be considered as a perpetual series of peculiar corpuscular changes; and the living body as the being in which these changes take place.”

f11 Iliacos…: Horace Epistles 1.2.16: “Within and without the walls of Troy wrongs are done”.

Eastern Allegorists: For Brande’s use of this phrase, see 4646 f6^vn.

M^r Brande’s assertion: Outlines of Geology 79 (Manual 509):

It was once a great difficulty to imagine a combustible which should thus furnish fuel to melt these immense masses of primary material, and to conceive the real cause of that expansive power of heat which Dr. Hutton always flies to. But the discoveries of Sr H.Davy concerning the true nature of earthy bodies, have furnished unexpected evidence in defence of these apparent incongruities of the Huttonian doctrines.

jure philosophico: “by philosophical right”.

Eastern Allegorist, H.Steffens: See 4646 f6^vn. Steffens Grundzüge 105 explained the formation of the earth’s crust by oxydation [fire] and hydrogenation [water]. Thus Coleridge argued that Steffens anticipated Davy.

f11^v The huge Boulder Stones…: H.B. de Saussure Voyage dans les Alpes, precedes d’un essai sur l’histoire naturelle des environs de Geneve (4 vols Neuchatel 1779–96) I 166–7 explained that the granite boulder protected the pillar beneath it from erosion. Coleridge evidently was arguing against catastrophism, using Steffens’s idea that granite is a product of reduction. Grundzüge 99 foll; also Geognostisch-geologische Aufsätze 228 foll. Cf 4551 f74^v and n. Coleridge may have read de Saussure, but could have seen in Brande’s Manual 504n a reference to John Kidd Geological Essay (Oxford 1815) 168–9, who discussed de Saussure’s Debacle System. William Playfair Huttonian Theory of the Earth (Edinburgh 1802) 384 foll mentioned the granite boulder of de Saussure and opposed the explanation of a violent debacle of waters when the seas retreated from covering the mountains. Coleridge likely read Playfair, the standard statement of Hutton’s theory.

4648 28.7 f12^v Nature…as a plastic Will, acting in time and …finitely: The footnote begins on the facing page (f13) below, where the central point is made, the attack on pantheism, and runs to the end of the entry. The footnote in fact appears in the MS to be less a footnote than a continuation of the entry, and therefore is so printed.

On Life as plastic Will see CN III 3840, and in this volume 4929, 5150 and nn.

f13 Finality…superinduced—not inherent: I.e. Finality as created by God and, contrary to Pantheism, not inhering by necessity in even the essences productive of forms. See CN in 4418 f11^v and n.

Life−Finality is=a Wena man: Life minus Finality, contrasted with Life+ <superinduced> Finality (f12^v), is like a Wen, as opposed to a man. The wen image occurs from early days—perhaps a personal revulsion.

et impiâ pietate: “and in impious piety”.

f13^v Eastern Pantheism: Cf in the preceding entry, Eastern Allegorists (f11). See also CN III 4498 ff139^v–139 and n, and Lect 3 P Lects (CC) ff82–88.

Presupponens…Presuppositum: “The pre-founding [power] and the prefoundation/ the presupposing and the presupposed”.

A and Ω: Rev 22:13.

f14 in the one, as Idea, in the other, as Law: In Man as idea, in Nature as Law. Cf 4649.

<Nature in Apotheon>: Nature “on the way to becoming God-like”— evidently supplied on second thoughts as an explanation of Life compleatly subordinated to Finality.

the best Schellingians: E.g. Steffens; see 4776 ff84^v–85.

Λ in the IIν: “Logos in the Pneuma, Word in the Spirit”; see 5249 and n.

f15 esse in percipi: A reference to Berkeley’s premise that “being is perceiving”; see also Lect 13 P Lects (CC) ff597–602.

As I have demonstrated in I.e. as explained in 4646, this symbol means “N 27”; the reference is to 4540, 4541, 4545.

(wann) die Natur keinen Schatten…: “when Nature casts no shadow on perception, perception does no violence to Nature, where both have become completely inseparable”. No German source has been found.

4649 28.8 Anticipation : Idea : : Theory : Law: Anticipation is to Idea as Theory is to Law, a common form of equation with Coleridge.

Cohobation: Repeated distillation.

On similar conjunctions of the terms used here, see The Friend (CC) I 419–23, 492–3, Lect 12 P Lects (CC) ff573–579 and n 63.

Pay the post and go to Hell: Untraced.

4650 28.9 Further reflexions on the reading behind 4646 on the adaptation of animals to environment?

Camelopardalis: Gi raffe.

(labor improbus): Coleridge is using the proverbial phrase from Virgil Georgics I 146; Lamb used it in his poem “Leisure”: L Works v 56. Coleridge’s context seems to imply “relentless toil” or “degrading work”.

naturâ suâ (consociat se dapibus]…ANIMAL SOLARE EST: “by his nature (he joins as a partner, in the feast)—no less is it lawful to embrace and to kiss a betrothed maiden or mother and sisters, either standing or sitting, so that his dutiful affection is not without love, and his love is capable of chastity.—.—In the preservation of his species, I admit, (he appears to be a slave), he becomes the servant of Nature and Earth; but he does not without injury to himself become a bondsman. He prostrates himself before nature, covering human face with human face—His eyes from above [are] cast down towards the earth, but towards the Earth occluded by the countenance of the Mother to be; that countenance intervenes lovingly ashamed and looking towards heaven, which is reflected rather than eclipsed by the closer and more domestic heaven of the husband’s countenance—Finally, Man truly is A SOLAR ANIMAL”: Untraced.

If the couplet at the end is Coleridge’s it does not appear in PW.

4651 28.10 Lucretians: I.e. presumably those who, like Lucretius (De rerum natura v 783–804), held a theory of material evolution from a spontaneous generation of life. Coleridge possibly included such proponents of natural theology as the Oxford parsons 5061 and philosophizing Noachists (5119).

Miraculists: Presumably believers in a miraculous Creation, literalist interpreters of Gen 1 and 2.

factiously discharged: Coleridge’s weakness for a pun comes out in his severity against the illogicality of those who use so-called “facts” to support their faction (Miraculists) when by so doing they make themselves vulnerable to a similar use of “facts” by their enemies, the Lucretians. On “facts” see 5217 and n.

4652 28.11 The whole entry is a mixture of running commentary, précis, and translation of Heinrich Steffens Grundzüge 29–33.

“The Bound poned as Boundless…: Cf Steffens (29):

Tr: Every finitude [“Endliche”, which Coleridge translates as bound] is, when opposed to the Infinite, merely finite; in itself, however, an infinitefinitude. Thus, in relative counter-position, it appears as a subjective entity, having its object outside itself, as a mere formal entity whose real being lies elsewhere than in its own ground; in itself, however and apart from its relative counter-position, it is its own ground, and at one with it. From a relative point of view it is an (A=B), but from an absolute, an (A=A) or an A². Thus the finitude, when it is stated to be infinite, acts as the second power, or the square of itself.

See also 4775 and n.

But there is no Square of I: I.e. I2=I. The Infinite in the Finite is a consequence in any dynamical theory in which matter is infinitely divisible.

their system…ours: I.e. of the Naturphilosophen as opposed to Coleridge’s and J.H.Green’s system. See 4541 and n

the 3 Laws of Kepler: Astronomy nowadays gives Kepler’s three laws in the following order:

1. All planets travel in an elliptical path with the sun at one focus of the ellipse.
2. A line drawn from the sun to a planet sweeps over equal areas in equal times.
3. The squares of the orbital periods of the planets about the sun are proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axes of their elliptical orbits.

Steffens reversed the order, and so began, as Coleridge states, with The Squares of the periodic Times. This is the conclusion of a long paragraph enunciating Kepler’s first law:

Tr: So it follows generally that the periodic times, in the case of all heavenly bodies, are in proportion to the square roots of the cubes of their distances from the centre, which is the first Keplerian law.

Roger Long (1680–1770) must have been a legend in Coleridge’s time in Cambridge; his Astronomy in Five Books (2 vols Cambridge 1742, 1764), completed in 1785 after his death, became the authority on the subject. See also 4781, 4782 and nn.

This alone given by Long as a Law: Kepler’s “first” law (in Steffens’s order) was given alone in § 90 of Long’s Introduction, merely as an example. All three laws were given by Long, without specific numbering however, in his Bk v Chap 10 § 1621: Vol II (1785) 705.

f17^v 2. (If I understand St. aright: Steffens (33) wrote—and in view of Coleridge’s uncertainty the original German is retained:

Durch die elliptischen Bahnen der Planeten wird ihre relative Differenz angedeutet, so dass kein Weltkörper für sich, wohl aber alle zusammen, die vollige Cirkelbahn beschreiben, welche aber für die sinnliche Anschauung, (mit welcher schon nothwendig alle relative Differenzen bis ins Unendliche gesetzt sind), sich nicht offenbaren kann, sondern nur für die intellektuelle Anschauung in dem ewigen Wesen der Vernunft absolut ist. Daher die Nothwendigkeit des zweiten Kepplerschen Gesetzes.

Tr: The relative difference of the planets is indicated by their elliptical orbits, in such a way that no single heavenly body but rather all of them together describe the complete circle, which, however, cannot be manifested for the perception [Anschauung] of the senses, (with which all relative differences right up to the infinite are of necessity already given), but is only absolute for an intellectual perception in the eternal essence of reason. Hence the necessity of the second Keplerian law.

2…. the second Keplerian Law: Steffens referred to but, as Coleridge says, did not state the second law explicitly.

Is it the same as the Newtonian Law: None of Kepler’s laws is the same as Newton’s law of gravitation. Kepler’s laws alluded to by Steffens are laws of motion.

3. The Planets moving in Ellipses: Steffens (34) wrote:

Tr: The actual equivalence of both unities, however, whose scheme is the ellipse, is restored by the very fact that the times are to the centre not as the circulating orbits, but as the spaces as a whole are; for since these are equal in area, then it follows that if the relationships of the times are the same as theirs, equal areas will be described in equal times, and it follows that the ellipse is expressed in its movements in fact if not in appearance. And this is the meaning of the third Keplerian law.

Did Coleridge in reading Steffens turn to Long for confirmation or clarification? See 4782 and n below on a related point.

In the first law…: Steffens (34–5) wrote:

Tr: Whereas the first Keplerian law expresses the identity of the planet with itself, and the second the relative difference, the third expresses the synthesis of identity and difference, and thus these laws express the entire type of regularity in the movements and being of the heavenly bodies as relative totalities, and in so doing completely express the type of being of the particular in the general.

f18 Kant in the commencement of the Einz[ig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer] Dem[onstration des Daseyns Gottes]: This work appears in Kant’s VS II (Halle 1799) 55–246; Coleridge annotated three copies of this volume, one of which has a note on this work on p. 109. The “Math. Student” is the “intelligent pupil” in Kant, and appears in a paragraph beginning on this page, which is in fact at the commencement of Pt II of the

essay, not of the essay as a whole. Kant refers in general to the astonishing order in the geometry of the circle, and proceeds to an instance.

Tr: If we were set the problem of arranging sloping surfaces at various horizontal angles in certain lengths so that bodies freely rolling down them would arrive at the same time, anyone who understands the laws of mechanics would see that elaborate arrangements would be required. However, this arrangement occurs of itself in the circle with an infinite variety of positions, and yet in each case with the greatest exactitude. For all the chords adjoining the vertical diameter, whether they start from its highest or lowest point, at whatever angle you choose, have this in common: free fall along any of them will take the same time. I remember one occasion when I presented this theorem and its proof to an intelligent pupil; once he had understood it clearly, he was moved by it no less than if it had been a miracle in nature. And indeed, seeing such a multiplicity so strangely unified according to such fruitful rules in so seemingly simple a thing as a circle surprises us and rightly transports us in a wild surmise.

f18^v In the Planets…: Coleridge returned to Steffens (30):

Tr: In gravity, all forms are indistinguishably at rest, as in the dark night of absolute being. But now all contradiction [Coleridge’s opposition] of forms is resolved into one form that is equal to the Essence and one with it (as the planets are), or the single forms are in counter position to one another in idea in such a way that the individual-in-idea [das Ideell- Einzelne] is related to the whole as it is to its own ground. In the first instance, time and space, motion and rest are posed as identical, but in the second, motion will be manifested not in what is at rest and one with what is at rest, but as motion towards that which acts as its ground. From the former (the identity of rest and motion) arise the laws of motion of the planets; from the latter the laws of motion of the single bodies moved relatively towards the centre in which they rest, or the laws of gravity.

The crux of Coleridge’s work here is the comment at the foot of f18 about the false assumption of Naturphilosophie that the finite is absolute.

in the first [i.e. Essence], T[ime] Sp[ace], Motion…Rest. See below 4654, 4929 and nn.

4653 28.12 No need of Fire: Basalts can be seen as genetically derived from the older material of granite, instead of the result of fire; cf 4551, 4864 and nn.

“The four Basaltes…: Cf Thomas Pennant’s Tour in Scotland: “This is the most northern Basaltes I am acquainted with; the last of four in the British Dominions, all running from South to North, nearly in a meridian”, and he gives the names, but spells Brismhawk thus. (2 vols Chester 1774) II 292. Brande discussed Basalt Outlines of Geology (Lect v) 116–22: Manual 527–9 (see 4646 above) but Coleridge was reading Pennant also; see 4783 and n. Brande argued for fire as the explanation.

See above 4583 where a similar discussion goes on in relation to earths. Here, however, the earths are considered with an emphasis on their metallic derivation, and with reference to iron. This introduces the concept of magnetism and geo-magnetism, important, Coleridge says, for the geographic distribution of the Basaltes, as in the Magnetic Axis.

Silica alumina Lime Magnesia: This is a series of earths seen in relation to metallic character—hence the circles symbolizing me-talleity—with different powers in the compass of nature predominating in different earths. Thus in silica the power of carbon predominates. For the other symbols, and the co-relation of chemical substances with powers, see 4555 and n; also App A. The new symbols are conjecturally interpreted to mean directional components of the Compass of Nature on which the metals are aligned (4555). Thus “oxygen plus west-east predominance in centrality” (or metalleity) diversifies “Magnesia” from “Lime” and υice υersa “hydrogen under the predominance of carbon minus the west-east predominance in centrality” div[ersifies] L[ime] from M[agnesia]—because in lime the west-east power is lacking, compared with magnesia. (Coleridge has confused his two symbols for lime; see 4583.)

the “good Excellion”…a fine old word! But not in OED. (bono auxilio): “by (or with) good help”.

N.B.“earth” instead of “metal”: See 4583 where Coleridge referred to silica, alumina, lime, magnesia, earths, using the triangular symbols; here he called them metals, using the circles.

4654 28.13 Evidently continuing the speculation in 4652 f18^v above. On Time relatively to Space see also e.g. 4929 and on the entire idea of the entry as Coleridge developed it, see 4775, 4776, 4778 and nn.

4655 28.14 Ad Lectorem…To the Reader. For earlier caustic applied to reviewers see CN II 1850; CN III 3302, 3952, 4035, 4323, 4480 and nn. Against the personal attacks (in pre-libel law days) of erstwhile friends like Hazlitt, Wilson, and Jeffrey he was incapable of retaliation. Moreover he despised reputations based on reviewing; of Southey’s hack work in this line he was particularly scornful. See CN III 3661 and n.

4656 28.15 The general lines of the argument were used in Opus Max (MS) III.

“something true”, “a verity”, as Coleridge defines it.

heuristic: From Kant’s “heuristik”? The first English use recorded by OED is dated 1860. Also in 5094.

f21 Handlungsweise: “a mode of proceeding”.

(add Identity?): See 4765 and n.

abstractions: See the next entry and n.

inter res heterogeneas nullus datur antagonismus: “among things of a different kind there is no opposition”. See 4945 and n.

f21^v in mundo intellectuali: “in the world of the mind”. argumenti causâ: “for the sake of the argument”.

f22 Ideas…Conceptions: see 4940 and n.

f22^v objective in the Subject…subjective in the Object: See 5215, 5281 and nn.

f23 Proschema: “preliminary scheme” Not in OED.

Organology: The word appeared in the sense of a study of the organs of mental activity in the title of a work by T.Foster Essay on the Application of the Organology of

the Brain to Education (1814). But Coleridge was not using it in its phrenological application; see 4662 f32, 5293 and n. Cf on organon 4673 and n.

4657 28.16 Outline…in Rees: Cyclopaedia, Vol. XXV, P. II: The reference suggests that Coleridge was using a copy for which Vol xxv was in two parts; there is no other evident explanation of his “P. II” (or P. II). This encyclopaedia has quarto signatures, not page numbers. On the issuing of this work in parts see CN III 3569n. B.D. Jackson Attempt to Ascertain the Actual Dates of Publication of the various parts of Rees’s Cyclopaedia (1895) showed that Longman’s published the work in parts, two to a volume. The parts appeared from 1802 to 1819, on the completion of which a set of title pages was issued dated 1819 for the 39 volumes plus five dated 1820 for the volumes of plates. The two parts comprising Coleridge’s Volume XXV, Jackson dates without certainty April 1813, but this entry appears to belong to 1820 and probably Coleridge has access to the completed series.

The article on “Outline” described outline as “ideal line” but it did not use Coleridge’s word Abstraction. On the word and process of abstraction see 4538, 4630, 4835 and nn; also The Friend (CC) I 520–1. It had for Coleridge crucial meaning philosophically in his dissection of the Naturphilosophie; see e.g. 4910, 5217 and nn, also the special interest in it in regard to Aristotelianism in 5133 f97^v.

f23^v Pars sui completivus in Totum suum: “Part completing itself into its Whole”.

Flaxman’s Homer, Eschylus & Dante: On the sculptor John Flaxman, see 5186; Coleridge refers to his famous illustrations, engraved by Piroli for the Iliad and the Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, and the plays of Aeschylus. These were mentioned in the Rees Cyclopaedia article.

potenziations: See above 4645 and n.

plastic Imagination: The old word “plastic” (cf plastic will in 4648, plastic Numbers i.e. Proportion in 4814 f54^v, and the Plastic Powers of Nature—Laws as we now say, in 4899 f44) Coleridge found useful to his dynamic position, suggesting process, activity, making, for which latter he also used poesis, see CN III 4176 and n.

Flaxman was a contributor on art and archaeology to Rees’s Cyclopaedia in 1819–20; was this article his, or by a knowledgeable friend? See 5186 below.

4658 28.17 Possibly initiated by Brande Manual 83 § 128 on Chlorine which says: “when a burning taper is immersed in a jar of chlorine, the brilliancy of the flame is much impaired, it becomes red, throws off much charcoal, and is soon extinguished”

The entry appears to be incomplete. Was Coleridge interested in chlorine, its incombinability with Charcoal on the one hand, and its readiness to combine with metals on the other, in relation to its poisonous effects on breathing?

sensu philosophico: “in a philosophical sense”; see the next entry.

4659 28.18 Heat and Fire: Combustion was for centuries a central problem to chemists. Hydrogen (~) and oxygen (…) are respectively that which is burned and that which supports combustion. In his copy of Oersted Ansicht der chemischen Naturgesetze (Berlin 1812) Coleridge wrote on the title page, “All bodies into Combustive, Combustible, and Neutral…But I cannot with my present knowlege of Chemistry see the advantage of this division.” Hydrogen and oxygen are not merely substances but symbols for West and East in the Compass of Nature; see 4929 where Coleridge divides chemical species into Combustive as opposed to Combustible; also 5405 and nn. For the relationships of Light and Warmth see 4855. Steffens Grundzüge 48–9 discussed warmth in relation to powers and to chemical process. For Steffens as for Coleridge these were fundamental issues. For Coleridge on caloric see 5144 and n.

action of the red heat…Sulphuric Acid on other sorts: A standard means of producing oxygen gas; to Coleridge a significant problem is why heat should liberate oxygen from a compound while combination of a combustible with oxygen is generally productive of heat. Production of oxygen from oxyd of manganese by heat and by action of sulphuric acid was demonstrated in Davy’s lectures at the Royal Institution in 1802; for Coleridge’s notes at the time see CN I 1098 and n. The facts about manganese compounds cited here are also in Brande Manual 226 § 410. f24 wrestling war-embrace: As in CN III 4418 f14; cf “total embraces” CN III 4435 f28. See 5249 and n. In this entry the embrace is of the powers corresponding to oxygen and hydrogen, East and West.

Contractive and Dilative: I.e. oxygen and hydrogen; see 4556, 4557 and nn.

4660 28.19 39 of the Phil Trans is the issue for 21 Sept 1668 in Vol III 771–4, the article on The Osteocolla “An Extract of a Letter” from Frankfort by Professor Johannes Christophorus Beckman. It made no reference to the German Hammosteus, a puzzling word not found in German dictionaries. Was Coleridge in a good library looking at the earliest volumes of Phil Trans, or .was he reading someone who quoted39 on Osteocolla? There were articles in learned journals on the subject through the 18th century, chiefly disputing the nature and genesis of this arborescent tufa.

Coleridge’s interest in this subject is part of his curiosity about the margins of the animal, vegetable, and mineral, and the light that chemistry may throw on such matters.

the Fluorine or Phthoric Principle: See 4565 and n.

4661 28.20 In pencil.

my Systema ενκυκλοπαιδενμενον: “my encyclopaedic System”. See the next entry, also 4652.

that in consequence…subsisting as Bodies; Coleridge’s distinction between substantive and modifying powers is the key here. See a note on the front fly-leaves of Steffens Beyträge:

The Powers of Nature, her Hand, as it were, form a Pentad=5 fingers, or four fingers and the Thumb. I. Attraction. 2. Repulsion. 3. Contraction. 4. Dilation. 5. Centrality—.Let the Thumb represent the 5^th or Central Power.—Of these the I^st [[and]] 2^nd [[are]] and 5^th are the Constituent, substantive Powers: the 3^rd and 4^th the modifying or adjective Powers: 1 and 2=Magnetism; 5^th=Galvanism; 3 and 4=Electricity./

See also a note on Oersted quoted in 4659n.

In the Compass of Nature, the N-S powers (/and are constituent, W-E (~and…) are modifying. But in all bodies, all four powers are present in a dynamic balance; the predominance of powers determines the specific qualities of a body.

In this entry, the co-presence and co-activity of powers underlies Coleridge’s statement that the activity of the modifying powers enables the substantive/constituent powers (embodied in carbon and nitrogen) also to act as powers, while, conversely, the activity of the substantive powers enables the modifying powers to subsist as bodies (hydrogen and oxygen). This is a consequence of the coadunation of powers.

Coleridge here illustrated the workings of this approach by representing,~West or hydrogen, the power of dilation (4555) as symbolizing caloric,≡, which is therefore a modifying power. As the power of dilation~diminishes, the Northerly power,/, fixity and attraction, thus crystallization, increases. At the same time, the Northerly power comes to predominate over the easterly also. The Northerly power corresponds to the power of cold so that an increase of crystallization and of cold correspond to an increase of the substantive Northerly Power. Thus Cold is not a mere comparative—Heat.

The association of cold with North and with magnetism (the NS power) leads Coleridge to iron, a magnetic metal—and to Steffens Grundzüge (1806) 139–40—The contraction of frozen Iron ist nur scheinbar (“merely apparent”) because it is merely a change in predominance from S to N, from repulsion to attraction, which is merely a change of the balance of N-S powers—only increased Cohesion, i.e. only increased Northerly power, and not true contraction, which is an Easterly power. Increased Cohesion involves a change in the balance of N-S powers, M —M, magnetism being the N-S power, and also the power of length—just as water expands—i.e. lineal enlargement—in freezing. Cf 4513 and n.

4662 28.21 The entry is Coleridge’s response to the Identitäts-lehre of Steffens in his Grundzüge. Coleridge’s copy was bound incorrectly (and contrary to his instructions) in front of Steffens’s Beyträge, and the confusion was increased by the label on the binding, which reads “Schellings Naturgeschichte”. The volume is in the BM.

Steffens wrote (16) that nature is grounded in itself as an absolute and that consequently all things are identical in this absolute, e.g. (27) motion and rest, actuality and potentiality, space and time, subject and object, finite and infinite. Thus, he continued (40), the opposition of light to gravitation is not A to B but A to A. He saw being as the identity of becoming and infinite being (25) and generation as reproduction mediated by the relative identity of sex (70). This struck Coleridge as fraudulent, since the opposition of A to A, besides being meaningless, has no logic or dynamic for production. He had to have a genuinely dynamic system in which polar opposites synthesize at a midpoint. See CN III 4418 and n.

Steffens, Handbuch p. 61: I.e. Grundzüge 61 tr: “Every chemical process forms a peculiar life of its own (a momentary identity of gravity and light); but because the process is only momentary, and ends with relative differences, the entire globe appears, from the chemical point of view, as something relatively differentiated, in which the seeds of individuality momentarily strive forth, but always to sink back again into the whole.” For Coleridge’s symbols see App A.

f25^v Corpus mortuum: “dead Body”. Usually Coleridge uses it like caput mortum, i.e. inert residue after distillation; here it is his synonym for Neutralization.

Life must be anterior to the chemical process…: The crux of Coleridge’s position as developed e.g. in TL.

ff28–28^v momentaneousness and momentaneous are old usages, but momentaneity does not appear in OED.

anastatic System: The system of creation of the world from the Chaos and its return to God; see 4554 and n; also CN III 4418, 4449 and nn.

f29 the New Decorators of Spinosism: E.g. Schelling. Cf his statement that “‘Naturphilosophie’ as the opposite of ‘Transcendental-philosophie’ is mainly distinguished from the latter in that it posits Nature (not indeed in so far as it is product but in so far as it is both productive and product) as the Independent; hence it can be most briefly described as the Spinosism of physics”. Tr Einleitung 4; see also 4671 below.

εν δε πληρωματι…: “in its fullness are posited all things that really exist”.

amphoterism: Not in OED; on amphoteric see 4942 and n.

nisus redeundi…melius: “the impulse to return to identity…Progression to better things”.

f29^v Multeity: See CN III 4352, 4449, 4450 and nn; also 4545, 4556 and nn. Cf momenteity above.

“[partaking of] both-neither”.

Schellings System: Coleridge’s summary here provides an important clarification of his dissatisfaction with Schelling, which had accelerated since BL days; cf McFarland CPT Excursus Note XII.

and mine: See CN III 4449, 4450; and in this volume 4673, 5122 and nn.

Nur scheinbar: “merely apparent”.

f31 which being…must so appear to us: This is written in pencil, with corrections, insertions, and some italicizing in ink, showing with what care Coleridge was struggling to be precise here.

f31^v Steffens’s Manual: The Grundzüge; see above f25.

<the υis mascula of> a πρωτον “the masculine force of a first truth”. ab et in precedenti: “following from and in a preceding cause”.

f32 Gegensatz: “opposition”.

f32^v individual Life chemical Action: “individual Life as contrary to chemical Action”; cf Steffens’s sentence (Grundzüge 61) following the one cited at the beginning of the entry (tr): Chemical process=tendency toward assimilation; for assimilation is the striving to absorb differences in a determinate power”.

dazzle-dimmed: Cf CN II 2793.

ff32^v–33 Steffens’s “irrelative Identity”: I.e. the Absolute without relative opposites, discussed in Grundzüge 17–20.

individual Ident[ity] of > =the Soul!!: See 4677, 5377 and nn.

4663 28.22 Possibly Coleridge attended a lecture at the Royal Society 6 May 1819 when a communication of David Brewster to Sir Joseph Banks was read, or in 1821 he was reading the Philosophical Transactions for that year. Brewster’s article “On the optical and physical properties of Tabasheer” gives all the chemical details here, but does not refer to the bamboo source being female. Either that was already in Coleridge’s knowledge or, if he was in a good library, he turned back to Vol LXXX of Phil Trans (1790) 273–92 and read the article by Patrick Russell introducing tabasheer and giving botanical details, including (275), “The bamboo in which the Tabasheer is found is vulgarly called the Female Bamboo, and is distinguished by the largeness of its cavity from the male, employed for spears or lances”.

Tabasheer was of interest to Coleridge in its gradual accumulation of silica. It was an example of the chemical relation of vegetable and mineral. This raised the general question of vegetable educts and products, as in 4579, 4814 and nn.

4664 28.23 In pencil.

Luther (Table Talk) says:

They [the “School-Divines”] talk much of the union of the will and understanding, but all is meer fantasie and fondness. The right and true speculation (said Luther) is this: Believ in Christ; do what thou oughtest to do in thy vocation, &c. This is the onely practice in Divinitie. Also, Mystica Theologia Dionysii is a meer fable, and a lie, like to Platoe’s fables: Omnia sunt non ens, et omnia sunt ens; All is somthing, and all is nothing, and so hee leaveth all hanging in frivolous and idle sort (1652) 4.

The best annotation on this entry is Coleridge’s own note on Colloquia Mensalia (1652) 4, in CM under Luther. Coleridge’s reading of the Colloquia Mensalia is datable from Oct 1819, when he borrowed Lamb’s copy, until at least 1829, a date in one of the annotations. See 4594 and n above.

Coleridge transfers to Schelling the oscillating (Schwebend) Luther attributes to Plato.

4665 28.24 Coleridge’s selection and condensation of the Colloquia Mensalia (1652) 5 is of interest; cf

I intended manie times (said Luther) well and thoroughly to search and finde out the Ten Commandments; but when I began at the first words, I am the Lord thy God, there stuck I fast, the verie first word [I] put mee to a non-plus. Therefore, hee that hath but one onely word of God to his Text, and out of that word cannot make a sermon, hee will never bee a good Preacher. I am content and satisfied (said Luther) that I know but a little, what God’s Word is, and do take great heed that I murmure not against such my smal knowledg which God hath given me.

I have grounded my preaching upon the literal word; whoso pleaseth may follow mee, hee that will not may chuse…. True it is, the Saints do know God’s Word, and they can speak thereof, but the practise will not follow; therein wee are and remain alwaies scholars.

The School-Divines gave a fine comparison touching the same. It is therewith (saie they) as with a Sphere, or round Globe, which, lying on a table, toucheth upon it but onely with one point, whenas, notwithstanding, the whole table supporteth the Globe.

N. b. a good emblematic Vignette: On Coleridge’s interest in emblems see 4975 to 4981 and nn.

Neologists: See CN III 4401 and n.

ψενδο-evangelicals: Those who interpreted and defended orthodoxy by the letter of the Bible. Coleridge frequently distinguishes them from the Paleyan and Grotian rationalizers. True evangelicals for Coleridge were men who, like Wesley, proclaimed a stirring spiritual message.

“Table Talk”, German Tafel and English Talk transliterated into Greek with a slip in the last letter.

hoc modo: “in this way”.

4666 28.25 The Just liveth by Faith: Heb 10:38; Gal 3:11 var. Probably stimulated by Luther’s Colloquia Mensalia (1652), e.g. 186–207 “Of the Law and the Gospel” and 208–29 “That onely Faith in Christ justifieth before GOD”. The text was central to Luther’s theology.

4667 28.26 The differences in the two Creation stories in Gen are most fully discussed in CN V N 26 f35^v; see CN III 4418 and above 4554 to 4558 and nn. Cf this entry with a letter of c 8 Jan 1821 to L. Neumegen CL V 135.

I, and υ 1. 2.3. of II^nd C. of G.: Gen I, and Gen 2:1–3, or the first Creation story.

Contrary to; for Coleridge’s symbols see App A.

II from 4 inclusive: Gen 2:4–25, or the second Creation story.

υ. 11, 12 C. I.: Gen 1:11, 12 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

υ. 5 of C II: Gen 2:5; actually verses 4 and 5, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth.”

Jehovah Adonaim: The word used for “God” in the first story is Elohim, in the second Jehovah Elohim. The term Adonai (plural Adonaim) is from the Hebrew adon, “Lord”, which appears rarely in OT and not at all before Gen 14:22. It was a word reserved for human rulers and came into use as a substitute for Jehovah in later Judaic tradition. Coleridge is correct in using the plural form Adonaim for the Elohim of the second story, but incorrect in using the singular Adonai for the Elohim (translated “God”) in the first.

elder and ruder document. in AT II 283–8 Eichhorn concluded that the relative ages of the two documents could not be determined. Coleridge’s theory seems to be his own; most Biblical critics of his day dated the second later than the first.

4668 28.27 The entry is apparently a continuation of Coleridge’s speculations on the origins of languages and races; see 4548 and 4866.

Metals-könig: “Metal king”, referring to the pure metal residue after smelting. The Latin (and English) term regulus, with its German equivalent, was still current in metallurgy in Coleridge’s time.

primary oxidation: Cf 4934 and n.

zurück gedrängt…übergewalt der Sch[em]+Japhet: “Ham pressed back because of the stronger affinity, or rather the overpowering of Shem and Japheth”; the German is probably Coleridge’s own.

4669 28.29 The entry is not in Coleridge’s hand, but in a particularly painstaking version of Charles Lamb’s; it is much tidier, and written with a better pen, than Lamb’s own sonnet in 4589. Superficially the hands look like different ones, but literal examination points to Lamb for both. This Thurlow sonnet appeared at the end of Lamb’s essay, “Defence of the Sonnets of Sir Philip Sidney” in the London Magazine (Sept 1823) VIII 251. Thurlow shared Lamb’s enthusiasm for Sidney; see L Works IV 428 and 4810n. It was preceded by Lamb’s introductory note:

A profusion of verbal dainties, with a disproportionate lack of matter and circumstances, is I think one reason of the coldness with which the public has received the poetry of a nobleman now living; which upon the score of exquisite diction alone, is entitled to something better than neglect. I will venture to copy one of his Sonnets in this place, which for quiet sweetness, and unaffected morality, has scarcely its parallel in our language.

Edward Thurlow (2nd baron 1781–1829) had published a volume of Poems in 1813 in which this sonnet appeared.

This entry then, and perhaps 4589, if they were copied out for Coleridge on the same visit, probably antedated the London Magazine publication Coleridge naturally would have in print. On the assumption (based on Coleridge’s usual practice of opening a notebook at blank pages for friends to write in it,) that ff36 and 35^v were blank when Lamb transcribed the sonnet, an 1820 date is suggested.

4670 28.28 These memoranda on tropical varieties of the acacia may or may not be related in part to Coleridge’s reading of Oken Naturgeschichte. The names are all in Index Kewensis, but not all in Oken. Coleridge’s immediate source is untraced.

exudation of the Gum Arabic from the Acacia υera: Oken Botanik ii Naturgeschichte III 828–9 (tr): “A[cacia] υera, nilotica…from Egypt to Senegal; yields gum arabic, which came formerly only from Egypt but which now comes much from Senegal.”

Acacia Senegal…: Ibid. (tr): A[cacia] Senegal…in Senegal; from thence to America; a tree which covers the entire coast; exudes 2–3 inch, round, dull white bits of gum, from October to June.”

the West…loosed from the I.e. in the Compass of Nature, loosed from the centrality; see 4555 and n. This material is not in Oken.

Acacia Arabica…Shittim Wood of Moses: Oken described the Acacia arabica as similar to the nilotica but not as a link to the senegalensis. The shittim wood of e.g. Ex 25:10, 25; 26:16; 27:1 was more probably the acacia seyal, considered inferior to the nilotica and the senegalensis. Shittim was probably a place name in Moab, meaning “the place of the acacias”. On Coleridge’s view of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch see e.g. 4562 and n.

4671 28.30 Spinosism in all its forms: I.e. pantheism; see 4648, 4662, and nn. See also CN III 3516 on Spinosism and the “Spinosisticbarren” of CN III 4424. For an unfavourable comparison of the Schellingian Spinosists with Spinosa see CN III 4429, 4445. Cf also the letter to J.H. Green dated Sept 1818 CL IV 873–6.

εποπτικοις…“mystical”, “epoptic”; on epopsy see e.g. 4521 and n.

η νοητικοις: “or rational”, “noetic”.

forbidden in the 2^nd Commandment: Ex 20:4–6.

same Veto…in the first: Ex 20:3.

under any image: See 4679 and n.

substrate: OED “obsolete”; see 4648.

it is an “I”: See 4784 and n.

alone the Lord God…personally worship: Deut 6:13 and Matt 4:10.

W.without Pers. is=0: Worship without Person equals zero; see 4728 and n.

f37 Luther, p. 17: Colloquia Mensalia 1652) 17, “That God is sought for, and certainly found in his Word concerning Christ”:

If (said Luther) thou wilt be sure and certain of thy Conscience and Salvation, then abstein from speculating and searching to know and to seek God the Lord, aswel what his Essence is, as also his Will, according to thine own sens, reason and carnal cogitations: for without his Word, and his Son Christ, hee will not bee found. But thou must learn to take hold on God by such means as hee is expressed in holie Scriptures, concerning which S^t Paul saith: For after that, in the Wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believ. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but wee preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness: But unto them that are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

f37 Luther, p. 17: Colloquia Mensalia 1652) 17, “That God is sought for, and certainly found in his Word concerning Christ”:

If (said Luther) thou wilt be sure and certain of thy Conscience and Salvation, then abstein from speculating and searching to know and to seek God the Lord, aswel what his Essence is, as also his Will, according to thine own sens, reason and carnal cogitations: for without his Word, and his Son Christ, hee will not bee found. But thou must learn to take hold on God by such means as hee is expressed in holie Scriptures, concerning which St Paul saith: For after that, in the Wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believ. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but wee preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness: But unto them that are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

that of the Moravians: For Coleridge on the Moravians see CN III 4169, 4409, and below 4909 f71^v and nn. RS Life of Wesley (see below 5240 f27n) I 192–3 describes the beliefs of Count Zinzendorf and Peter Boehler on Christ as the first step in coming to God.

that of Em. Swedenborg: E.g. in the “universals of faith” passage in True Christian Religion tr John Clowes (2 vols 1819) I 2–3. Coleridge’s annotated copy of this translation is in the BM:

It is a universal of faith that He came into the world to glorify His Humanity, which He assumed in the world; that is, to unite it with the Divinity of which it was begotten (Divino a quo); thus He keepeth hell eternally in order and under obedience. Inasmuch as this could only be effected by means of the temptations wherewith He suffered His Humanity to be assaulted, even to the last and most extreme of all, which was His passion on the cross, therefore He endured that process. These are the universals of faith concerning the Lord.

The universal of faith on man’s part, is, that he should believe on the Lord; for by believing on Him, he hath conjunction with Him, and by conjunction, salvation.

Coleridge added in the margin:

I can neither attach any meaning to these words logically, nor can I find any assertion in the Evangelic or Apostolic writings, by the light of which I might conjecture what the author had in his mind. If begotten be used as essentially diverse from created, how could the offspring be proper Humanity, instead of God? If not, and the Virgin conception were simply miraculous, even as Adam’s Birth was, then Christ was first deified after his Crucifixion, as for aught that appears to the contrary Moses or any other Prophet might have been. At all events it was a Contingency. But The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge 112 this is mere Socinianism, i.e. according to Socinus himself, & what is of far more importance, the Redemption becomes a mere work ab extra, like the Redemption of the Israelites from Egypt.

4672 28.31 the whole work: The Logosophic System and Method by S.T.C. as described in the next entry.

f57^v Mηδεις…αγεωμετρητος εισιτω: See above 4542 and n.

neglect of my Mathematical Studies: On a blank leaf in his copy of Boehme Coleridge wrote of his “bitter regret”; see also CN II 2894 and n, and CN III 3455, 4266 and nn for his continuing interest in mathematics.

f38 a late period: See CN III 4266 and n; the 1815 date of that entry is confirmed by Coleridge’s description here of himself at that time; he was with the Morgans, in Bristol, fighting his addiction.

Coleridge’s blank after Catena of was followed by a new start with another pen.

Napier: John Napier (1550–1617), a diverse inquirer after Coleridge’s own heart; he invented inter alia logarithmic tables for ballistic purposes largely out of zeal to defeat the Roman Catholic succession of James VI of Scotland to the throne of England.

4673 28.32 The Logosophic System and Method: The last sentence indicates the 1820 date of this plan, which appears to combine a Logic, projected at least as early as 4 June 1803 (CL II 947), with the work on the Logos announced to friends at various times under various titles from Sept 1814 onwards (CL III 533), and the work proposed in 4645 above. These works will materialise as the Logic (CC) and the Op Max (CC). For related notebook entries see CN III Index I under Coleridge, S.T., MANUSCRIPTS: Logic; PROJECTED WORKS: Logic; Logosophia.

organon criticum et heuristicum: A “system of criticism and investigation”. On heuristic in English; see above 4656 and n.

de D.M. et H: de Deo, Mundo, et Homine, “concerning God, the World, and Man”.

f39 S^t. John C.I. v: John 1:5. The Greek that follows is from John 1:18; “No man hath seen God at any time, the Son which is in the bosom of the Father.” For the importance of this text in Coleridge’s terminology see below 5256.

Organum υerè organum…utillima: “An Organon which is truly an organon: that is, an instrumental Logic, both critical and heuristic, of the greatest use in the pursuit of the natural sciences, whether by observation or by experiment”. Cf a letter to Godwin as early as June 1803 where Coleridge described his logic as “a Σύστημα of all possible modes of true, probably, & false reasoning, arranged philosophically, i.e. on a strict analysis of those operations & passions of the mind, in which they originate, & by which they act.” (CL II 947).

f40 a fellow-inquirer: Chiefly J.H.Green, sometimes James Gillman or C.A.Tulk; in a letter of I April 1818 Coleridge says these “Conversations” were about to begin. CL IV 847. See also CN III 4416, 4440. The Tours in the years 1817–20 were short ones from Highgate into Sussex and Essex, or to Ramsgate, but Coleridge had a sociable liking for composition conceived of as being somehow shared with a companion and on the move; see e.g. an early plan for “Travelling Conversations” (CN I 774) and later, the “Weatherbound Travellers” (4549).

4674 28.33 In pencil.

Physica: A deliberately vague neuter plural to suggest a comprehensive method or body of knowledge or abstract ideas; on abstraction see 4538 and n.

Matter=verb impersonal, υidetur: I.e. Matter may be represented by the impersonal “there seems/it is seen”. Cf SM: LS (CC) 81 n2.

Materiale or mater[ial] Substance=existit: I.e. “material” (a neuter adjective used as noun) or material Substance may be represented as an intransitive verb, “it exists”.

Body=subsistit: I.e. Body may be represented as subsisting.

Ditto, in the phraseology of Nature: I.e. in specific phenomena in Nature as well as in philosophical abstractions concerning matter; see 5448 and n.

existit alterius υice: “it exists on account of something else”.

M[aterial] S[ubstance]=existit suo jure et suas habens proprietates, at nons nisi in altero: Material Substance means “it exists in its own right and as having its own properties, but only in something else”.

subsis[t] it et sibi et ut Basis alterius, υiz M.S. superinductæ: “it subsists for itself and as a Basis for something else, viz. for superinduced Material Substance”.

4675 28.34 Again an entry towards a Greek grammar. See also 4644, 5135, 5227, 5253, 5340; all are appearing in SWF.

4676 28.35 Obscurity: Coleridge often laughed at his own “obscurity”, e.g. The Friend (CC) I 511n; or defended it, i.e. rational obscurity: e.g. SM: LS (CC) 4 n, 98 and n. “Obscure feelings” he thought inevitable, indeed essential to imaginative processes; see e.g. CN I 383, and a letter of 21 Oct 1801 to RS (CL I 768).

Lycophron: See CN III 4189 and n, and CN I Text xxix.

Euclid’s 37th Pr[oposition]: Probably 37th Problem is meant, as in the Duke MS (see 4843n): “I think as idle a question as to whether Pythagoras beheld all the properties of the 37th prob: of Euclid when he exclaimed

Tacitus…difficult: Because of his epigrammatic brevity and his use of poetic license.

4677 28.36 Following this entry a word [?Former/Firmen] appeared as the first word of a new paragraph on the stub of a leaf (facing f45^v) in the notebook when it was photographed in 1937, but the stub was trimmed off or lost in the reconditioning of the notebook in the BM in 1951. There appears to have been no more than one line of writing on the excised leaf.

The entry is a continuation of Coleridge’s speculations on Creation and life, with German materials in the background, particularly Schelling. See CN III 4418, 4555.

in genere: “as such”.

Entelechie: Realization from a form-giving cause. The term is used by Schelling Einleitung 30–6. See below.

Causa existendi determinate: “cause of determinate existence”.

herein differing from the inanimate…Life of Nature: Schelling (ibid 30) does not make this distinction (tr): “In Nature originally there is nothing to be distinguished; all products are, as it were, dissolved and invisible in the general productivity”. Coleridge counterposed to this Schellingian causa a second and more definite one, the cause of individualized life, seeing two motions where Schelling saw only one.

causa communis existentiæ indeterminatæ: “generic cause of indeterminate existence”.

f44^v phænomenal individuality being given to each thing by the position: Schelling argued (ibid 287–90) that the products of nature form an endless, graded series in which life is simply one more product or stage.

its position…is predetermined…if not produced, by the Entelechie: In Coleridge’s system each inanimate product is defined by its point, or position, as is each form of life, but for life the position must be defined ahead of time by the entelechie, or motion toward a specific point. Thus Coleridge made use of Schelling’s category, but refined it in his own way.

Schein: I.e. “apparent”, “merely phenomenal”. Schelling argued (ibid 31) that each finite product of nature was merely a Scheinproduct. Stones exhibiting branching patterns of minerals were classified as fossils, as were minerals; not having life they were not individuals.

Erscheinung as in Chrystallization: Schelling called each discrete point produced by nature an Erscheinung, simply a higher form of the Scheinproduct (ibid 287–8).

f45 however endless the grades of descent…in living things: Schelling (ibid 26–31) wrote that nature must be thought of as endless productivity as well as endless evolution. Coleridge objected to these assumptions as contradicting vitalist principles and making the Schellingians mere decorators of Spinoza; see 4662 and n. Cf 4555, of which this note is a logical extension.

God, the Word: The actuating principle of light, order, the good, in working on the original Chaos; see 4554, 5297 and nn.

even here as Pre-substitute: Coleridge is providing an Anticipation of his own Christology, or philosophic view of the manner in which the incarnation of the Logos provided redemption for man, a position to be more fully developed in CN v. The Logos, as the actualizing principle from God of Life/Light, by incarnation in a single form, becomes the phenomenalization of the generic, perfect Man, in whom individual fallen men may lose their individuality by identification of their individual Reason with it and thus become perfected. In this sense Christ is a substitute, for Coleridge a logical extension of the action of the Logos on the Chaos. See 4998, 5144, 5377.

imputed Righteousness…IX Rom: Rom 9 is a discourse on God’s having chosen an elect from both Jew and Gentile according to his will before their birth. The term imputed righteousness is from Rom 4, where Paul speaks of righteousness imputed to Abraham and his children. Coleridge seems to be saying that Romans bears out his view that the redemptive principle of the Logos in nature is active before individualizations occur.

Light in its identity or Prothesis: I.e. first step in the re-ordering of the Chaos. For the “accommodation” of naming the Prothesis according to one side of it see CN III 4418.

f45^v L + Pr: Light+Prothesis.

Centrality.

these (○s): I.e. the symbol ○ pluralized for metals.

The Word is Light—in it is Life: John 1:4.

from Light to Light thro’ Life: I.e. from the Light of the original Prothesis through Life, to redemption through the Logos as the incarnation of that principle of Light (the Light of John 1:4).

Inoculation: Possibly in the sense by analogy of introducing something into matter in order to produce life.

4678 28.38 The entry is one of sixteen lines, the whole page f46v; each line is heavily X’ed over with a blunt pen and black ink. The reading of the figures in the date in the last line, April 10, 1820/April 16, 1826 is inconclusive because of the overlay of strokes. April 10 in 1820 was a Monday, as Coleridge says; April 16 was Easter Sunday in 1826. In a letter of this date to Allsop, “Two and three fourths lines are heavily inked out in MS” (CL v 39) at a point where Coleridge was discussing enthusiastically “the relations of an only Sister to her Brothers …”, i.e. Sara to Hartley and Derwent, who were staying in Highgate with him at this time. There is however something odd about the date of that letter (deduced from the postmark 10 April 1820), as in the P.S. “tomorrow” is referred to as a Sunday, which is impossible if the letter was written at one sitting on Monday 10 April.

As the notebook was carelessly or very quickly shut after the obliterating, the ink has spread, increasing the blurring and the difficulty of reading the entry.

Line 9 began with quotation marks.

Line 10 began with “with us”, apparently a reported conversation.

In line 16, all but a final word or two is partly legible: Nota bene—Monday [April 10! 16], [?1820!1826]. As April 10 was a Monday in 1820, this may be the preferred reading.

April 16 was the anniversary of Coleridge’s arrival in Highgate; it is possible that the entry may have to do with the Gillmans. The hatchingout strokes suggest Mrs Gillman’s rather heavy pen.

4679 28.39 “without form-producing forms” or as Coleridge translates, without potential moulds; in his note on Böhme Coleridge used formæ formificæ; see below.

Understanding…no substance: A frequent explanation of the term understanding with Coleridge, from the Latin sub+stans for “[something] standing beneath”. See also 4935, 5418, 5422, AR 6, and the note on MSS in Behmen below.

the Bulls that are engendered: See CN I 1620 and n.

entia: “entities”.

Procrustes Bed: In Greek legend the robber Procrustes cut off or stretched the legs of his victims in order to fit them to his bed.

Note MSS, in Behmen, vol. 3, p. 33: A note on Mysterium Magnum: Works III i 33, Chap 8 “Of the Creation of Angels”. Coleridge’s note reads (CM I under Boehme):

Without the forms (formas formificae, or potential moulds) of the Understanding the quota supplied by the sense & its organs (= the Senses, the Eye, the Ear, &c) would have no substance: no coherency: without the Sense the forms of the understanding would have <no> reality, no purport. But as our present senses correspond to our present understanding, so are do the forms of the Understanding belong to the our senses—& have no import except as applied to Objects of sensuous Experience. We say have is no sense in them.

The dating of this entry is confirmed by the conjectural date in CM I under Boehme, of c Nov 1819 for some of Coleridge’s annotations. Certainly the note to which Coleridge referred above preceded this entry, as did the fly-leaf note referred to in 4672.

4680 28.41 The lines by Charles Lamb were published first in the Champion of 6 and 7 May 1820 under the caption In tabulam eximii pictoris B. HAYDONI in quâ Solymaei, adveniente Domino, palmas in υia prosternentes mirà arte depinguntur, and signed “Carlagnulus”. The reading offers in line 6 is a slip for aufers; in line 7 donatque is a slip for donataque in Lamb’s quotation from Horace. Lamb freely translated his poem in the Champion 14 May:

On the picture by the outstanding painter, B.Haydon in which the inhabitants of Jerusalem are depicted, with wonderful art, strowing palms at the approach of our Lord.

What rider’s that? and who these myriads bringing Him on his way, with palms, Hosannas singing? Hosanna to Christ! Heaven, Earth shall still be ringing

In days of old Old Palma won renown: But Palma’s self must yield the painter’s crown, Haydon to thee: Thy palms put every other down.

If Flaccus’ sentence with the truth agree That palms awarded make men plump to be, Friend Horace, Haydon soon shall match in bulk with thee. Painters with poets for the laurel vie; But should the laureate band thy claims deny, Wear thou thine own green palm, Haydon, triumphantly.

Var in L Works IV 90–1.

4681 28.42 In pencil, down to Temples. A joke jotted down in the course of conversation, the ink addendum being Coleridge’s later decoration of it? Possibly it came, like the preceding entry and 4589 from Charles Lamb; or like 4682 from John Kenyon.

4682 28.43 In pencil.

M^r Kenyon: John Kenyon, poet and philanthropist, was a friend of Poole, and befriended Coleridge in 1814–15 in Somerset. See CL III 540–2, IV 916; the last shows that Kenyon attended some of Coleridge’s lectures in 1819. He sent Coleridge a copy of his Rhymed Plea for Tolerance (1833); it is now in the BM with antagonistic annotations. There is a recorded conversation between Kenyon and Coleridge in the Academy 15 Aug 1885. See also 4681n above.

4683 28.44 Sir Christopher Heydon, Knight: A Defence of Judiciall Astrologie, in Answer to a Treatise Lately Published by M^r. John Chamber (Cambridge 1603). The droll passage on p. 10 reads:

As for those whome they call Mathematici, I am taught by Iohannes Mercurius Morsshemius to answer, that the solution of this word, dependeth much vpon the Orthographie thereof; sith there is a great difference between Mathematicus with an aspiration, and without an aspiration. For Matematicus without an aspiration is so called of the Greek word ματέυειν, which signifieth to be madde, or vaine. From whence Matematica is held, as it were a madness, and vanitie. And this is that Matematicke profession, which the Emperour forbiddeth. But Mathematicus, as it is written by M.Chamber, with an aspiration, is derived of μανθανεīν which signifieth to lerne, from whence the Mathematicall arts, are called Disciplines.

a mathesis: “from mathesis” i.e. “from the Greek word for the process of learning”.

ματαιος: “foolish/vain” see also 5206 ƒ17^v and n.

4684 28.45 Churches, but no Church: A typical Coleridgian mode of thought, and in this context basic to the thesis of C&S of which see e.g. Chap VII.

the Lay Tithe-holders: Coleridge shared the contemporary disquiet about tithes; see LS: (CC) 167, also 213.

Messrs Western, Bennet, Sir John Sinclair: After Parliament reconvened 21 April 1820 it was natural to link these three names in the atmosphere of agriculture and general economic crisis. Charles C.Western (1767–1844), M.P. for Essex 1812–32, agriculturalist and advocate of parliamentary reform, John Bennett (1773–1852), M.P. for Wiltshire, was concerned about the national debt and its effect on purchasing power of manufactures and agricultural products, and Sir John Sinclair, variously criticized by Coleridge (see CN III 3849 and n) though no longer in Parliament was a powerful political presence in the agricultural party. See also on the country party 4720.

the Borough System: Until the Reform Bill of 1832, the borough system was much as James II had known it but tending to concentrate more power into fewer hands. Agitation to reform it, chiefly to achieve fuller representation of the new commercial and industrial interests, was part of the larger movement for parliamentary and electoral reform.

f51 Convocation: Convocation, prorogued in 1717, was not restored permanently until 1852. In C&S (CC) 99–100 Coleridge pointed out that such suppression usually avenges itself. See 5064.

Um nicht Kirchen allein…: If this was stimulated by some work in German it has not been found.

Tr: To have or come to be one church not simply churches, we lack a central authority, an external centre for our union: a lack that in our relationship with the Catholic church, which is through its constitution closely organized and can move in a mass with the greatest ease, is bound to work out to extreme disadvantage, for the case can arise so easily thereby that in cases of dispute, each of our churches has to do with the entire Catholic or Methodist party, or even (as recently in the case of Lord Sidmouth’s Bill) with the whole variety of the Dissenter-Party—not to speak of the lords of the land and their underlings.

f51^v recently…Lord Sidmouth’s Bill: To which of Addington’s numerous repressive measures Coleridge refers is not clear, but possibly the “Bill for the more effectual prevention and punishment of Blasphemous and Seditious Libels” (December 1819), one of the notorious Six Acts. In late Nov—Dec 1819 both houses of Parliament—and the pages of The Times—were largely occupied with these attempts to bolster a discredited government by suppressing public demonstrations of protest. Coleridge appears to be using the lack of unity in the one church as a prototype of the lack of unity in the country, the Dissenter-Party being those most vociferously critical of the moral depravity of George IV and his ministers. Sidmouth, who introduced and carried through many restrictive measures, was highly unpopular not only with dissenters of the religious sects, but with political dissenters of all stripes, especially those concerned about civil rights. Even Brougham, in the debate on the Seditious Libels Bill “conceived that all the bills lately introduced into the house tended to abridge the liberty of the subject. The present bill however went to abridge the liberty of the press, which he conceived to be the great pillar of the constitution”. (The Times 4 Dec 1819).

4685 28.46 The Piony (now more usually peony) suggests an entry of May—June 1820 in this run of 1820 entries. A personal pathetic play with flowers in extended fantasies is an aspect of Coleridge’s identification with helpless living things; see e.g., CN III 3859 and n, also the McGills MS, quoted in 4926n.

4686 28.47 A coarse cartoon—or a caricature?

Venus Plebeia: “Plebeian Venus”.

a wreath of Syringa and Dutch Myrtle: Syringa, or Philadelphus coronarius, or “mock orange”, so named originally because its stems were used as pipes, syringes. Myrtle because associated with Venus, and Dutch as a frequent term of abuse in English, the Dutch being reputed (along with the French) to have supplied harlots for English soldiers.

Caesaries: Hair, especially as here, pubic hair.

ποξ: pox

4687 23.18 St Peter’s assertion: Acts 10:34–5.

misinterpreted by the naturalists & Socinians: Coleridge possibly has in mind here Thomas Belsham The New Testament in an Improved Version (1808), (1819) 270n (see CN III 4140n), who in urging this interpretation cited as authorities Dr Henry Owen, Bishop William Newcome, and Theophilus Lindsey.

f17^v Christianity…perfecter of human nature: See 5244 and n.

Elias went before: Matt 11:14 and Luke 1:7 equate John the Baptist with the “Elijah” of Mal 4:5.

sweep the Temple clean before the Lord of Glory entered’. Cf Ps 24:7–10.

4688 23.19 In Coleridge’s annotated copy in the BM of Calvin’s Harmonie, in the edition he cited here, his quotation appears on the second page (unnumbered) of “The argument of the Gospell of Jesus Christ, according as it is sette foorth by Matthew Marke, and Luke”; he has modernised the spelling of “Merrye newes”.

4689 23.20 June 30^th, 1820…after the “sad news from Oriel”: about the cancellation of Hartley’s fellowship; see below 4691 and n.

Strange & fearful Dreams…I believing myself to have departed this Life: Was this a recurrent dream? He dreamt of his own death in 1803 in Edinburgh and late in life (c 1825) recalled it when he had another dream of a similar sort (5360). Coleridge earlier had marvelled at how humanly recognizable though malign were the creatures of his dreams (CN III 3322, 4046 and nn); for his most sustained theoretical discussion in the notebooks of dreams, see CN III 4409 and n.

How like the Hell of Swedenborg: Swedenborgian hells are repetitively full of malevolent monsters, especially in two works annotated by Coleridge and now in the BM: De coelo et ejus mirabilibus, et de inferno, ex auditis et υisis (1758) and in translation, The True Christian Religion (2 vols 1819). Cf Coleridge’s “Hell in a [?slave/dream] state” in a letter of Oct 1803 to the Beaumonts, quoted in CN III 3542n as slave state; a further look at the very faded passage (written with his gout medicine), makes dream state equally plausible. See also CN III 3474 and n.

the terror…is—Life without breathing: In addition to the dream entries cited, cf 4613 and n above. Although personal experience lies behind this remark, a few sentences in Swedenborg may have been in mind also. Cf

The image and likeness of God are the two lives breathed into man by God, namely, the life of the will and the life of the understanding; for it is written: Jehovah God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life, and man became a living soul (Gen. ii 7). These words clearly mean that there was breathed into him the will of good, and the perception of truth, and thus the breath of life…. “The state of integrity, breathed into him by God, is continually breathed into every man; but it is in man, as a recipient; and the man, being a recipient, is an image and likeness of God”.

The True Christian Religion (1819) § 48.

4690 23.21 The entry, like 4691, is in unclear pencil, and possibly is not far in date from 4689.

Michael Scott (Edward I time): Possibly Coleridge was here gathering materials for his proposed drama (4642) on Scot, although there he puts it later: Time that of Wickliff (i.e. c 1365); Edward I was earlier, 1239–1307; see above 4642n.

Zoroaster Disc[iples]: Pliny Natural History XXX ii says magic originated in Persia with Zoroaster and that it is surprising the tradition survived, Zoroaster having had no line of distinguished successors.

The earliest editions of Pliny, up to 1593 at least (Natural History XXX ii 5) list his disciples essentially as Coleridge gives them here. Later editions give them as Apuscorus and Zaratus the Medes, Marmarus and Antiphocus of Babylon, and Tarmoendas the Assyrian. Pliny adds that they left nothing but their names. Histaspes [Hystaspes or Hydaspes] and Astrampsyches are more fully documented. The first is mentioned by many writers as having been a Persian king, disciple and patron of Zoroaster; some say he was the father of Darius, some that he was the author of a prophetic book on the end of the world. Astrampsyches is credited with works on dreams; see below 5105 and n.

Dardan of Phænicia: Pliny xxx ii 9–10 tells the tale that “Democritus expounded…Dardanus the Phoenician, entering the latter’s tomb to obtain his works and basing his own on their doctrines…. So utterly are they lacking in credibility and decency that those who like the other works of Democritus deny that the magical books are his. But…it is certain that Democritus especially instilled into men’s minds the sweets of magic”. Pliny Natural History (LCL 10 vols 1938–62) tr W.H.S. Jones VIII 285.

<Gnostics,> Ephesian Letters: Coleridge wrote first Ephesian Letters and then thought of the Gnostics. Ephesian Letters seems originally to have been a term for six definite but mysterious words (Clement of Alexandria Stromateis V 242) but later was vaguely applied to almost any magic formula, in religious rites. Hugh Farmer in his An Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testament (1775, 1805) described their use by various sects to test the authenticity of cases of alleged daemonic possession. The Gnostics were particularly associated with magical incantations; Plotinus attacked them for believing that they could control higher powers by words.

Besama…regnasti: “O thou who art above all the virtue of the Father, we invoke thee, who art named light and good spirit, since thou hast reigned in the body”. Coleridge was quoting, var, in “Hebrew”, or Syrian, and in Latin translation, a baptismal formula of the Marcosians, a gnostic sect, who were said to use magic in their rites. There are two versions of this; in Irenaeus Adversus omnes haereses I 18 (or 21) and in Nicetas Acominatus (or Choniates) Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei IV 6. Besama (“in the name of”) is in Irenaeus only, but otherwise C appears to be following the (less garbled) text of Nicetas with its Latin translation; both are quoted in notes to editions of Irenaeus.

Coleridge here has selected what appears to be a distinctive concept in Gnosticism. Cf the long article on Gnosticism in EB (11th ed 1910–11): “The basis of the Gnostic religion and world-philosophy lies in a decided Oriental dualism. In sharp contrast are opposed the two worlds of the good and of the evil, the divine world and the material worldthe worlds of light and darkness…. Thus the Gnostic systems make great use of the idea of a fall of the Deity himself; by the fall of the Godhead into the world of matter, this matter previously insensible, is animated into life and activity, and then arise the powers, both partly and wholly hostile, who hold sway over this world.”

(Swedenborgianism.): See CN III 3847 where Coleridge caught himself uttering “Hints [that] verge to Swedenborgianism”. See also CN III 4409 § 10 and n. On Coleridge’s general attitude to Swedenborg see CN III 3810n.

4691 23.22 In shaky and uneven pencil, like 4690, except the last sentence. In the first sentence affirms appears to be a slip for affairs. Hartley’s persecuted imprudence at Oxford followed his election to a probationary fellowship in April 1819, his refusal to resign it under pressure in June 1820, and the refusal of the college council in discussions that summer confirmed in October, to renew his fellowship. Coleridge entered into the controversy with the college authorities, feeling there had been injustice, particularly in the mingling of gossip with facts. As late as December 1820 he told H.F.Cary of the effect on him of the “ill-usage” of Hartley, “like all other calamities affecting my body when I had supposed myself & mentally actually was, resigned and tranquil”. CL V 132.

George IV (see also 4827) was on the throne from 29 Jan 1820 to 26 June 1830, the outside dates possible for this entry. Probably it was written in pencil close to the two preceding entries.

“in my opinion at least”, a favourite qualification.

Scrupulists: A term applied in the 17th century to any of several groups who had scruples against or raised difficulties concerning the Church established by law.

popular Riots…at present: 1819 was the year of Peterloo and the Six Acts; in February 1820 the Cato Street conspirators were arrested; in April there were strikes and riots in the Glasgow area; in June 1820 Queen Caroline returned to England, creating numerous popular demonstrations in her favour throughout the summer, especially during her “trial”, from August to November 1820; see also 4720 and n on the disturbances.

4692 23.23 Metaphys[ics] is Speculation…: Metaphysics is based on Speculation as Physics is on Obserυation. See 4746.

Metaphysics and Poesy (4832 f61^v) both begin in a creative initiative in the imagination using selected ideas and in the process focus these in symbols. See CN III 4397 and above 4623 and n. See also on science and poesy 4929 f32 and n.

Analysts peripat[etic] or epicurean: I.e. the school of the analytical understanding, always criticised by Coleridge for limited mental capacities and attention to mere “facts” and sensations, in his view denigrating the mind itself; see 5144 ff25^v–26; also Chaps V, VI BL.

Such is Locke’s religion: See the four letters attacking Locke in 1801, in CL I 678–703 and Chap V BL (CC) I 96–8.

f19^v the aoristus primus…tempus): “the first aorist (or Indefinite, referring to any time)”.

The aorist. secundus…præteritum: “The second aorist is the Indefinite referring to past time” Either form of the aorist in Greek can express a timeless general truth. C’s distinction seems idiosyncratic.

Delirium or Dreaming: On the distinction see CN I 1770 and n.

ποθον desideria: “yearning, wants”; see CN III 3325, 3777, 4335 and nn; cf 4885 and n below.

f20 Alogist: See below 4767, 4794 f35^v and nn. Cf SM: LS (CC) 99–100 fn 5. Metapothecary: See CN II 2503n.

f20^v Limbo: See CN III 4073 and n, also for the source of the couplet that follows. The courts of the Sun, where there is “no twilight” 1AM: PW I 195) and the Valley of Vision (4795), where dreams are realized.

f21 Faith…is Instinct: Cf Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Ideas or Faith…the Instinct of Man: Reason in the human being as the counterpart of instinct in animals was an early and frequent topic, e.g., in No I The Friend in 1809; see The Friend (CC) II 12.

The distinctions here, making it clear that in the creative functioning of Imagination all its powers must cooperate and be in accordance with our whole Nature, that there is a universally subjective and individually collective developement, constitute one of Coleridge’s most important and explicit statements about the psychology of the imagination.

f21^v can Nature lie: Cf CN III 4378 and n, where the same phrase is used; possibly Coleridge was leafing through an old notebook.

Several phrases and themes in the entry suggest Swedenborgian preoccupations with spiritualitysensuality, dreams, phantoms, and memory, naturethe celestial; see 4689 for a nearby reference to Swedenborg. Cf also on The Imagination (not Fancy…) of Memory (f 19^v) and Thus the Objective rise up, as a celestial Birth, in and from the universal subject (f20^v) with 4545.

4693 23.24 Two leaves were removed preceding these pages of this entry; they might have yielded a clue as to the source of what now is a fragment without a beginning. C himself had forgotten the source when he transcribed what remains of this entry in or after 1825. (BM MS Egerton 2800 f188). See below 5447 f53^v and n.

4694 23.25 The passage quoted is from Lucius Apuleius Metamorphoses, or The Golden Ass Bk I § 4.

Tr:…You perhaps, that are of gross ears and an obstinate mind, mock and contemn those things which are perchance really the truth; know you not, i’ faith, that those things are accounted untrue by the false opinion of men, which are either seldom heard or rarely seen, or are so high that they pass the capacity of man’s reason? The which is you scan them more narrowly, you shall not only find them evident to the understanding, but even very easy to be brought to pass.

Tr W.Adlington (1566) revised by S.Gaselee (LCL 1915).

Zoomagnetism: See especially among many entries on Mesmerism 4512 above, 4908 and nn.

our late Indian Conjuror: The reference does not help to date the entry, for Indian jugglers and sword-swallowers were “the talk of the town” in 1813, S Letters (Curry) II 67, and as late as July 1821 were the subject of an Ackerman print. One assisted the nation to celebrate the coronation of George IV, judging by advertisements in the Courier. In Kirby’s Wonderful and Eccentric Museum (CN II 2452n) VI 337–43 there is an article on “The Indian Jugglers” with a portrait of a sword-swallower in the act.

In his final sentence quoted from Apuleius, Coleridge mis-copied sphatam for spatham, i.e. His Conjuror swallowed “a knight’s sword with a very keen edge” ( A spear?)—“and he devoured a hunting spear with the point downward….” Tr ibid.

4695 23.31 The entry is in pencil; the appearance of the hand associates it with 4690 and 4691 in date.

No doubt Coleridge’s reading of biologists, natural historians and anthropologists, particularly Germans such as Blumenbach, Oken, Steffens, Treviranus, Goldfuss and others before scientific terminology and classifications were standardized, encouraged him to attempt his own.

4696 23.32 For Coleridge’s symbols here see App A. The terminology indicates a date later than discussions on related topics in CN III 4420 and above 4536, e.g. nitrogen for the earlier azote (see 4536n); cf also CN III 4420 f20^v where metals are “Indecomponible Compounds”, whereas here they are all simple Bodies.

f27 Phthoric (Fluoric) Gas?: See 4565 and n on fluorine and for analogies between fluorine and chlorine, and see also Coleridge’s earlier indication that two ‘intermediate’ bodies (chlorine and iodine) had been found, and that their position on the Compass of nature (4555) was probably between E. and South, or Oxygen, and Azote (CN III 4420f20). Fluorine’s chemical analogies with chlorine placed it in the same quadrant.

Nitrogen + Oxygen or Chlorine…its Parents: For Coleridge on the tendency of the Naturphilosophen to use humanly analogous (esp sexual) terms see e.g. CN III 4435n, and in this volume 5405 and n.

Astringency: Böhme’s word; see 4550 f72^v and n, on Appropriative Attraction, or the more modern alternative, the energy of Cohesion; also 4555 f48^v 4556, 4929f29 and nn.

reific: not in OED where reification and reify are dated for first use 1846 and 1854.

the Metals…a series of Products…of Carbon &? Nitrogen: Cf CN III 4420 f19^v, f20 See also TL 69, the passage quoted in 4536n, which continues “…though in point of fact gold [misprinted “cold”] itself is but a superinduction of the one pole, or, what amounts to the same thing, the subtraction of the other, under the modifications aforedescribed; and therefore are the metals indecomponible, because they are themselves the decompositions of the metallic axis, in all its degrees of longitude and latitude”. On Metals and metallity, and on Ideal C[arbon] and N[itrogen], see 4555 and n; also 5155 and n.

But…is the weaker, the subordinate Force: andthes predominant. The Product therefore,discerps only the Silex: I.e. Oxygen or chlorine, i.e. East, is the weaker force, and nitrogen, South ideally, South by S.W.ideally (4555), the predominant. Thus N.E. is the weakest force overall. But/carbpn, North ideally, is N. by N.E. really. It follows that the product, fluorine, is in polar opposition to carbon, and thus, since carbon and silex are analogous, to silex. The Product therefore discerps only the silex.

discerp: “now rare”, OED, “to divide forcibly into fragments”.

This entry is related to Coleridge’s reading of Steffens; see above 4536 and n for correlations. Steffens (Beyträge I) placed nitrogen (in ammonia), in the same class as potassium, and Davy and Berzelius both considered that the amalgamation of ammonia with mercury and its subsequent reaction with potassium indicated that nitrogen was a compound, and might have a metallic basis. Thus Coleridge was able to rely not only on philosophy but also on direct empirical evidence for his argument here.

4697 29.45 f31 The entry is based on a review article in Ed Reυ XXXIII (May 1820) 431–5 on Franz Bopp Über das Conjugations system der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache (Frankfurt am Mayn 1816). The article conjugates the verbs sebāmi and σέβομαι, where Bopp does not, an indication that Coleridge was reading the review, not the work itself, referred to at the end of the entry.

my theory of the 3 Sons of Noah: See 4548, 4668, 4856.

The review article bears out Coleridge’s undeniable Identity of Groundwork in the Teutonic, Greek, and Sanscrit and also the theory that persons in the verbs are expressed by the verb of existence.

εω, ειμι, εομαι, ειμαι: Various and, except the second, hypothetical forms of the Greek for “I am”.

4698 29.46 The name of Odysseus appears in Greek in many forms, including ‘Oλιξεòς, close to the Ulixes or Ulysses of Latin. But Coleridge was trying to find examples of the Greek “οδ” becoming the Latin “ul” or “il”; (“this man”) becomes ille (“that man”) he suggests, (“this one”) becomes ullus (“any man”), and nullus (“no one”).

The wh equals F: Cf CN III 3834 and n.

Coleridge must have been thinking of Odysseus’s adventure with the Cyclops in the Odyssey (Bk IX) when he called himself (No-man).

4699 29.47 Coleridge gives the proverbial Greek with a colloquial German translation, “Drink or be off”. His metrical observation, however, does not apply to these words, for their metre is not Bacchiac (one short and two long). But the Bacchiac is common in Plautus; it is used for Wives’ Gossip in Poenulus (240–57), and for broad Soliloquy in Mercator (335–61), but often also for other purposes.

4700.0 29.48 Coleridge appears to be writing a few days after the event and is mistaken about dates. Monday was 10 July; the third reading of the Alien Bill passed on Wed 12 July 1820. Aimed directly at the foreign witnesses for the Queen, who at this time was stirring up trouble for George Iv at his coronation (19 July 1820), it allowed the government to expel foreigners suspected of inciting sedition and to prohibit the entry of any such persons.

Grant, McIntosh, Scarlett: Charles Grant, Sir James Mackintosh and Sir James Scarlett argued in the Commons that the bill represented a violation of civil liberties unwarranted in peace time, for which there was no precedent since Tudor times, and that to put such power in the hands of Ministers threatened the whole constitution; defenders of civil liberties in the Lords, such as Lord Holland, spoke against it. The argument that the powers were too great for Ministers to abuse was offered by Castlereagh. Canning’s argument, in the debate on the third reading, that because something was not illegal or forbidden it could be ignored, was a mere debating point to Coleridge. The type of logic is given a more humorous twist in 4938 f114, again in objection to Canning’s logic.

the Reformers…from Lord Russell…: These all appear in the indexes to this and previous volumes, except Russell, i.e. the first earl, Lord John Russell (1792–1878), who at intervals in 1819, 1822 etc., made strong parliamentary speeches advocating reform; see 5134n.

a sober-minded Patriot can whisper to himself—: The seven symbols may signify a seven-letter word. “Treason”? In the privacy of his notebook Coleridge appears to imply that having most of his life been in opposition to the proposed reforms of Parliament [for fear of setting up in its place a revolutionary assembly like the French one, with its consequent despotism], he is now almost ready to think that as Parliament has in any case fallen into unjust, unconstitutional, and unenglish policies, perhaps reform would be both just and expedient.

IF it were expedient, it would be JUST: Legislation, in Coleridge’s view, being manmade, not God-given, must be expedient, in the sense of “practical”. Reform of Parliament should, he thought, follow, not precede, the educational betterment of the voting public. Reform legislation, at some points in time, could be a calamity, e.g. in the surging radicalism of 1819–20 (see above 4594 and n), and yet now even a sober-minded Patriot [like himself] may find it a lesser evil than a corrupt government toadying to a licentious monarch. The Alien Bill would prevent the Queen’s witnesses from testifying on her behalf, win her public support, and make Parliament accomplices of the king, thus opening the door to violent demonstrations.

4701 29.49 After Or rather thus—the writing is in finer hand with lighter pen. Was it added later?

Council of Trent: Called in 1545 by Pope Paul III to reaffirm the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church while it corrected the abuses prevalent in practice, it lasted until 1564, and was designed chiefly to combat the effects of the Protestant Reformation.

4702 29.50 The entry refers to matters dealt with in Hyman Hurwitz Vindiciae Hebraicae; or a Defence of the Hebrew Scriptures. As a Vehicle of Revealed Religion: Occasioned by the Recent Strictures and Innovations of Mr. J.Bellamy (1820). Hurwitz sent Coleridge an extract from the MS, on which Coleridge commented in a letter of 4

Jan 1820 to Hurwitz CL V 1–9 esp p 5; c Aug 1820 Coleridge urged Murray to publish Hurwitz’s work and said he had read it and corrected the English and intended to contribute an introductory letter CL V 91–3. Vindiciae was announced in LMLA 10 Feb 1821.

The fact that the list of Hebrew words and their translation from the term for dust onwards is in Hurwitz’s hand, suggests that the whole entry may have been jotted down during a conversation with him. The last word means -very, the ad[verb]. (The words appear in Vindicae Hebraicae passim, in relation to dust and ashes on p 39.)

all aorist Truths…: On Gen 2:24 Hurwitz says, 52 fn: “For on strict examination it will be found, that whenever the inspired writers wish to express general truths, such as axioms, aphorisms, or facts not relating to definite time, they either express the subject and predicate only, omitting the copula; or, if the proposition requires a verb, such a verb is mostly in the future”. Cf 4692 and 5413 and nn.

Coleridge agreed with Hurwitz (51) that v. 24 is not a continuation of Adam’s speech in v. 23 and that Therefore should not be so interpreted.

It hardly needs to be said that the footnote is in Coleridge’s hand. Mother-waters was used (as early as 1674 but was coming afresh into the new chemical vocabulary from 1758 onwards) to refer to the solution from which crystals are precipitated; there is thus a sense in which waters (solution) give birth to fixity (crystals). In physiology also, the same principle entered into the debate about the nature of life and its relation to fluids, or organized solids. Hunter, e.g., stressed the “life” of the blood, a view Coleridge agreed with; see 4521 and n.

a qua: “from what/whom” (fem); aqua “water”. Coleridge found a Latin punning etymology for Mother-waters, seeing the possibility of a bilingual pun, in the Hebrew word for water, “ma-yom”.

υδωρ: “water”.

humor: “moisture/fluid” (sometimes umor).

udus: “wet/moist”.

For Coleridge on the emergence of the Creation from waters, see e.g. 4555 f50^v, 5090 and 5092 and nn.

4703 29.51 The entry continues the notes on or conversation with Hurwitz of 4702. The first use of…Shem or Name: Gen 2:19–20. The Hebrew word for name (noun) in all passages of OT is shaim.

the Beasts were called before Adam…: Hurwitz 47 wrote that Adam possessed the power of a language “founded on the nature of things. For thus the Scripture tells us…that Adam might see what name was most proper for each individual: and the verse concludes by telling us, that ‘whatever Adam called every living creature is its name.’ “But see Coleridge’s objection in 4770 f46.

Oυνομα: “name”; Coleridge must be taking this Ionic form ofas being νομα, “its name”.

Necdo…: Hurwitz 47–8 on Gen 2:20:

Hence the divine Historian, after having represented Adam as giving names to animals, says…“And to Adam he had not found a help* [ha-necdo] as his opposite, or rather, as his counterpart; i.e. he had not found a being that was like himself, as was the case amongst other animals.

* This word occurs both in the Chaldee and in the Arabic. In the former language it signifies to draw, extend, lengthen, etc. The leading signification in the latter is to be conspicuous, evident to the eye, to be in a direct line with the eye of the observer. And in this sense it seems to be used in the Hebrew.

With Coleridge’s interest in the subtleties of the Hebrew word (Necdo) cf his awareness of the Counterpart relationship in 5192 and n.

4704 29.52 the precise limits of the several Sciences: See below 4771. On the professions and professional life see also 5414, 5417, Inq Sp § 69.

Philosophist or Psilosopher: See CN II 3158, and n; CN III 3244, 3507 and nn.

the Learned Class in genere…priυilegiata: the Learned Class in general: “the learned republic: the community of educated men: the chartered universality of those who seek out, watch over, teach and investigate together doctrines sanctioned or meet to be sanctioned by the supreme power.”

Coleridge writes in his rôle as free-lance educator of young professional men; see e.g. CN III 3934, and below 5121, 5436; also the Introductory Chapters to his Logic (CC).

About ten years later Coleridge introduced in print (but see 5263 and n) the term Clerisy in C&S for the Learned Class in general; see below 4800 and n.

4705 29.53 Except for the last sentence, this entry was used by HNC in TT 1 Sept 1832, omitting “like Cobbett, and Rickman”. The date of the notebook entry (c Jul—Nov 1820) is unrelated to the TT date. Coleridge’s antagonism to Cobbett, (chiefly on the score of coarseness of sensibility) appears in references in the index to each volume of the Notebooks.

Rickman: See CN III 3849n, 4038n, 4181n.

Swedenborg…his notion of the Human Will: Emanuel Swedenborg De coelo et ejus mirabilibus et inferno, ex auditis et υisis §§ 589–96. Coleridge in his annotated copy commented on Swedenborg’s “equipoise theory”, given under the title of “De æquilibrio inter coelum et infernum” 240, 265, 266–7.

punct[um]indifferentiæ: The “point of indifference” image was used frequently by Coleridge in various contexts; see e.g. 4835 and n.

4706 29.56 Coleridge is attacking three kinds of theologians in this entry: the literalist orthodox, the rationalistic sceptics, and the liberal accommodators. Cf 5240.

the other party…: A view held by such widely divergent writers as Eichhorn NT I 633–4 and Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason; see CN III 4401 and n.

the juxta-position, of the two Contraries…Clerical Reverend Professors of the Orthodoxy; I.e. the view that the Bible is literally inspired but that “inspiration” does not mean the dictation of every word or exclude local prejudices; Coleridge seems again to be quarrelling with such prolific writers on this subject as Richard Mant and George D’Oyly; see 4793 and n.

“ the very words…Amanuenses of the Spirit”: The phrases variatim are common in Evangelical sermons of the day and perhaps Coleridge is himself paraphrasing.

The World, which was to be avoided by Christians: 1 John 2:15.

the World which could not but hate them: John 15:18.

Blessed are ye when all men speak ill of you: Matt 5:11; Lessing interpreted this and other passages as meant only for the Jews of the time; Tertullianus de praescriptionibus VIII: Sämmtliche Schriften XVII 343. Coleridge annotated this page on his copy (BM).

Mr Wilb[erforce]…Eldon &c. &c.—: On Wilberforce see 4938 and on Eldon 4959 and n. Sidmouth became, in Coleridge’s ironic terms, “the saintly Sycophant of Carleton House”; see 4772, also 4720.

4707 29.57 Mrs Anna Letitia Barbauld’s Hymns in Prose for Children (pub 1781), praised in The Watchman, ran to many editions of which most are unavailable. In the 9th edition of 1801 the passage quoted appears on p 93, but not in any other edition in BM (which holds six editions 1781–1824).

meaning one thing and conveying another. The prime sin in Coleridge’s canon; see almost every one of his prose works, e.g. The Friend (CC) I 43–9, 427.

On Mrs Barbauld see also CN II Index I and in this volume 4966n.

the Lord Mayor’s Show. From 1298 onward, a procession on Lord Mayor’s Day, Nov 9, in which the Lord Mayor of London with the aldermen and other dignitaries paraded to and from Westminster to receive the assent of the Crown to his election. Coleridge was objecting to the theatrical extravagance that accompanied it, making it a travesty on the serious responsibility of public men in government.

4708 29.58 The Object of the Mosaic Legislation a Nation: See 4872, 5269.

complete answer to…Warburton’s Fancies in his “Divine Legation of Moses”: Warburton argued that the Mosaic state (4872), being supported by special providence, neither needed nor held a belief in rewards and punishments in an after-life, as did all other ancient nations. Coleridge seems to be arguing that the Mosaic Legislation, as chiefly civil, included such a tenet, which was, however, corrupted as time passed. For Coleridge’s reading of Warburton see CN I 50, CN III 4322, 4325 and nn.

1 and 2^nd Chapters of the Wisdom of Solomon: The two chapters assert the immortality of the righteous, and although they do not assert an immortality for the wicked, they suggest that the life-principle, or soul, is immortal. See e.g. 1:13–15 and 2:23. The dating of the Wisdom of Solomon as 200 ante Christum is perhaps loosely following Eichhorn Apok 126, 136–7.

Sleep with the forefathers: E.g. Deut 31:16; I Ki 1:21; 2:10; 11:21; 14:20; 15:8; Job 7:21. The Hebrew word is shakeb, “sleep”, and is used interchangeably for ordinary sleep (Gen 28:11; 2 Sam 11:9; Prov 6:9) and death, as in the references above.

Jacob’s Pilgrimages & Promises: Gen 28–33 records the wanderings of Jacob after the deception of Esau and the appearances of angels to him in dreams with the promises that the Lord would give him this land.

go to Abraham’s Bosom: Luke 16:23; cf verse 22.

the Story of the W[itch] of Endor: I Sam 28:1–25.

super alia omnia eminent: “eminent above all others”.

semi-barous states: Presumably a slip for semi-barbarous states.

f38 aliquâ futuritate presuppositâ: “some sort of future state being presupposed”; see also 5377, 5334 and nn.

the Soul becomes…perishable Slough: Similar to Warburton Divine Legation of Moses: Works (1765) V 161–4, but not quoted from him.

Superstition…Surυiυance: For other uses of this pun on the root meaning of Superstition, see 4605 above, 5274 below.

4709 29.195 This entry went into the notebook earlier than 4711, 4712.

The entry is drawn from Jacques Basnage The History of the Jews from Jesus Christ to the Present Time tr Thomas Taylor (1708). Taylor not only translated but also edited and rearranged Basnage’s materials; as Coleridge here clearly followed Taylor’s order rather than that of the French original cited in CN III 4252n, references are given to his edition.

Misnah collected by Judah the Holy…John the Son of Eliezer: Basnage (Taylor) Bk VI Chap XII “The History of the Jews in the Roman Empire, from Severus’s Reign till the End of the Third Century” 530–1:

§ X. We have already shewn, that Judah the Saint, who was born the same Day that Akiba died, could not flourish under Antonius, and that he must be placed under Marcus Aurelius…. It has also been reasonably said, that this Collection must have been made later, since Judah the Saint is quoted in it. However we may follow the common Notion, I. Because the Reigns of Marcus Aurelius, Severus and Caracalla left the Jews more at liberty to apply themselves to study. 2. That was the time when the Academy of Tiberias, where Judah the Saint wrote, grew famous…. 3. Lastly, The Consent of all the Jews Ancient and Modern, who owned Judah the Saint for the Author of the Misnah, has always stagger’d me; and ‘tis no wonder, that he himself is quoted in his own Work, because very considerable Additions were made to it after his Death, and his own and his Childrens particular Traditions were inserted, as he had made a Collection of the Decisions of the preceding Doctors. § XIII. We have spoken sufficiently of the Misnah, Jochanan^q the Head of the Amoraiim made a Commentary to supply in part what was defective in his Master’s Work. This Man was of so extraordinary Beauty, that he was made to stand at the entrance of the Baths, that the Women coming out being struck with his Figure, and retaining his Idea, might have Children as handsome as he.

^q Or John the Son of Eliezer, Ganz [possibly David Gans (1541–1613) German theologian] calls him John, p. 111

callopædiæ causâ per υires imaginatrices: “with a view to their conceiving beautiful children through the imaging powers”.

This is the Thalmud of Jerusalem: Basnage (Taylor) Bk III Chap VI 167:

§ III. To remedy these disorders, Jochanan, with the assistance of Rab and Samuel, two Disciples of Juda the Saint, wrote a Commentary upon their Master’s Work, which is call’d the Talmud of Jerusalem….

The Targums…once in the Heidelberg Library: Basnage (Taylor) Bk VI Chap XII 533:

§ XXIV. We will relate in the following Chapter what share they had in Aurelius’ Expedition into Armenia. At present we’ll only observe, that they place Doctor Scesciath at the end of the Third Century. He was blind; but nevertheless became very learned. He had also a Dispute with the Christians, in which he had some reason. …Two works are ascribed to him; one upon the Cabbala, which was an explication of the Splendors [Sephiroth] the Manuscript of which was in the Heidelberg Library; the other was a Targum, or a Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Scripture.

Hillel II, Grandson of Judah…good old age 210, or 215: Basnage (Taylor) Bk VI Chap XII writing against Bartolocci’s chronology:

§ XVII. Our more certain Chronology is founded upon the History of the Christian Church. For Hillel II was known by Origen, and he embraced Christianity in the Reign of Constantine…Judah the Saint born in the Year 135, lived Eighty Years, to the Year 210, or 215….

Bartal. [Bartolocci] compared with Georgius Venetus: In the pertinent passage Basnage (Taylor) Bk VI Chap XII § XIV-§ XVIII does not mention Franciscus Georgius Venetus (F.G.Zorgi fl 1500) who was satirised by Donne more than once for his fanciful speculations playing on numbers, his Cabbalism, and outright invention. Basnage (Taylor), making Bartolocci look almost as fanciful, reminded Coleridge of Donne’s treatment of Venetus.

Donne had attended…Catalogue of Books: See for a translation John Donne The Courtier’s Library ed Evelyn Mary Simpson (1930) 44: “6. That the Book of Tobit is canonical; in which, following the Rabbis and the more mystical of the Theologians, the hairs of the tail of his Dog are numbered, and from their various backward twists and intertwinings letters are formed which yield wonderful words, by Francis George, a Venetian.” Coleridge’s reference to Donne’s remarks about Georgius Venetus in his “catalogus librorum satyricus”, as Donne called it, proves that Coleridge had access at some time to Donne’s Poems (1650), (1654), (1669) or (1719) in all of which the whimsical Catalogue of Books appeared. On his annotation in 1811 of Lamb’s copy of the 1669 edition, where the Latin prose text appears (398), see CN III 4073n. Venetus and his work are described in Tennemann IX 185–7.

R.Nathan Collection: Basnage (Taylor) 535, Bk VI Chap XIII, “The particular State of the Jews at Babylon, from Severus’s Reign to the End of the third Century, with a Catalogue of the Princes of the Captivity” (534–9):

§ IV. We only find in the Little Chronicle the Names of these pretended Heads of the Captivity, and we know ‘em no other way, excepting Nathan, who came from Babylon to Judea, whilst Simeon the Father of Judah the Saint was Patriarch. This Man is famous among the Jews, not only because he became Father of the House of Judgment at Tiberias, but because he Composed a Collection of Sentences of the Fathers, which were afterwards inserted in the Thalmud of Babylon. Buxtorf has judiciously concluded, that this Author lived in the Year 230….

About the times of Heliogabalus…must have been considerable: Basnage (Taylor) Bk VI describes Syncretist activities under Heliogabalus and Alexander Severus, the latter called the “Arch-Synagogue of Syria” because of his favourable attitude toward the Jews (Chap XII § XX-§XXII 532–3), and under other rulers following, down to Queen Zenobia, Jewish wife of Odenat, King of Palmyrene, the Saracen (Chap XIII § XVIII—§ XIX 534–9).

4710 29.196 Not far in date, by the appearance, from the next entry.

A grave Problem: On Coleridge’s taste for this macabre sort of pun and word-play see also CN III 4104, and 4073.

the anti-septic: The word (unhyphenated) had been used by Priestley in 1774 and once in the Gent Mag before that, but does Coleridge’s hyphen suggest he was inventing it? Or had he noticed it in RS Life of Wesley (1820) I 204? He was reading that about this time (CL V 108).

cancrine: Cancrine, i.e. crab-like, able to go backwards.

felisity: A pun alluding to the feline habit of burying excrement.

Sit alba…: Be it white, be it black (Unless it’s absurd) What was dung in the fly Lies as turd on turd.

4711 29.194 When this entry was written, 4712 was not on the page (see that n) but 4709 and 4710 were already on f132^v, and the first part of 4713. At the foot of f133 therefore Coleridge instructed himself to (turn over one Leaf) in the middle of a word.

Consequently this entry may be dated 15 or 18 Sep 1820; see 4713 and 4714 nn. f133 “for in nature is life, and [her] life is the light of men”. Cf John 1.4.

For other uses of these signs for opposite to and contrary to, see App A.

North…must contain in itself a South: A central principle taking various expression in Coleridge’s thought; see for a poetic example, CN III 4438: “Were there not Light, Darkness would have no name”.

Your objection: Whose objection? Hyman Hurwitz? See a letter of 4 Jan 1820 to him [CL V 1–9] in which Coleridge discussed OT doctrines, and matters connected with Hurwitz’s Vindiciae Hebraicae (1820), then being written. See 4702, 4703, 4770 and nn. On the other hand the didactic tone, not frequent in the notebook entries, sounds more like preparation for a lecture or a Thursday evening class, possibly for hypothetical objections.

that I do not sufficiently distinguish the historical from the doctrinal: He distinguished but did not divide (The Friend [CC] I 77) the two because he held that Religion consists of a union of historical facts with ideas or spiritual truths, 5421. See also 5241, 5290, 5421 and nn. In applying his polar logic to the Pentateuch, Coleridge was illustrating the way in which history is the embodiment of spiritual ideas, See 5421. For a central application to Genesis I see CN III 4418, also 4554–58, 4562 and nn.

equally unsafe to heterogorize and not to allegorize: Heterogorize, a nonce word, was possibly invented for the play on the anglicized Greek prefixes “hetero” and “allo”; it has not found its way into the OED or the language; on the word allegorize see 4900 and n. Coleridge here objects to seeing the historical as separate from its allegorical or representative υalue.

<turn over one Leaf> I.e. to f131^v avoiding 4709 and 4710 already on the pages between.

f131^v “unless above himself He can…Man!” Samuel Daniel, Epistle to the Lady Margaret, Countess of Cumberland: Works (1718) II 354. The quotation was used as a motto in the 1818 The Friend: The Friend (CC) I 100.

plusquam-individual: “more than”-individual.

(see Statesman’s Manual): SM:LS (CC) 29–32, 73n, 79.

Tablet of Cebes: The famous work so entitled, describing a (fictitious) allegorical painting on the life of man, was commonly attributed to Cebes, the Pythagorean. See Coleridge’s annotation on Marcus Aurelius, CN II 2077 and n. Also CM I under Marcus Aurelius Meditations for Coleridge’s annotations on J.Collier’s translation.

Vision of Mirza: Addison’s allegory of human life, in The Spectator No 159, in 5380 mentioned with the Tablet of Cebes and also Swedenborg’s De Coelo et Inferno,

A Symbol…I define: See CN III 4253. Coleridge’s principal statement about allegory and symbol is in SM App C and E; LS (CC) 79, see also p 30 n 2, n 3. In 5380 Coleridge used allegory and symbol as alternatives, as in common speech, but when attending to these as critical terms the distinction is evidently sharper and significant, allegory coming from the understanding, symbol being a product mainly of the imagination. But he was not always consistent about defining the terms; see CN III 4183, 4253, 4498 and nn, also III 4058 and n. See also the extended treatment in 4831, 4832 and nn, and 5334.

teutegorical: OED attributes the coinage to Coleridge in SM:LS (CC) 30 cited above; it was also used in 4832 f61^v, and AR 199. It was natural to Coleridge’s sense of opposites to form a word for “saying the same thing” in the context of the allegorical.

4712 29.193 The gibe was jotted in between the end of 29.192 (CN III 4503) and the beginning of 29.194 (4711), which was already on the page; it is therefore later than these, i.e. Sept 1820 or later.

Aυστραλ…βιος: “Austral’s life of Wesley”. On “Australis” RS see CN I 172, 349, 987, 1815 and nn, and on his life of Wesley, see also 5240, 5241, 5243.

Surgeon Whether J.H.Green had met RS personally is not recorded; possibly they met in June 1820 when Coleridge was hoping to see RS “before your return to the north”. CL V 50. Is Surgeon Green (a term not used elsewhere by Coleridge) a pun on the cutting edge of the remark?

By the autumn of 1820 RS and Coleridge—increasingly divided by their views of the economic and political depression of the period—were not on very good terms, in spite of Coleridge’s qualified approval of The Life of Wesley (1820).

Transliterated, “hermaphrod [ite/itic]”. Cf Byron’s view of RS as “Mr Facing Both Ways” in The Vision of Judgement (1822).

4713 29.197 This entry follows part of 4711 on the page. There is some error in the date here, or in the day (Friday) in 4714; in Sept 1820 the nearest Fridays were 15 and 22 Sept. In view of 4716 being dated Thursday 21 Sept, the most likely date for this entry is Sept 15.

It was first published in Gillmans of Highgate 38–9 where this, and the next entry and 5143 are said to have been transcribed by Mrs Gill-man for Mr Gillman’s projected second volume of his biography of Coleridge.

Handiness: In OED but not in this sense; it may or may not be pertinent to notice that in works on animal magnetism the hand and its functions are prominently discussed.

a word wanting…to Time what Place is to Space: Cf 4775, 4776.

co-inherent: A word Coleridge liked doubtless for its organic overtones; see 4644 and n; 4843, 5377; and coinherence in many contexts in addition to these: 4714, 4718, 4846, 4929, 5241, 5290, 5429.

to be raised from Being into Existence: Cf 4840 and n. In 5130, knowledge is said to be Being, i.e. not Existence; and Being is Knowledge. Is Coleridge implying that Handiness, the sense of Time, the sense of Relation, either in Place or Time, are all forms of unconscious knowledge? Existence is the externalization or in Coleridge’s terms the outness of Being. Being is the result of a process of becoming, and, as Coleridge says in a magnificent entry (CN III 3593), is “posterior to its [the Soul’s] Existence”. See also among many relevant entries, CN III 3591, 3592. See also 4840 and n.

4714 29.198 AP 296–8, and previously in Gillmans of Highgate (39–40); see the previous note. The numeral before Sept; 1820 is difficult to read; but if the entry followed 4713 by a half an hour the probable date was 15 Sept; see 4713n. Or in view of 4716 being correctly dated Thursday 21 Sept, (as to day and date) the day of the week is wrong here. In that case, the date of both 4713 and this entry would be Monday, 18 Sept 1820.

f131^v the Poet…wishing to appear as the Poet: See CN III 4388 f148 and n.

f131 anschaut: “perceived”; in CN III 3302 he suggested the Saxon “onlook” to translate it, in CN III 3801 he translated Anschauung as intuition, or immediate inspection. Anschauen the verb and Anschauung the noun are recurrent among the Kantians; see in contexts of “perception”, “conception”, “intuition”, “beholding”, CN III 3801, 4449 f30^v; 4923 in this volume, also 5431, 5432 and nn. Steffens says, “Die Identität des Denkens und Seyns wird Anschauung genannt”. Grundzüge 5: “The identity of thinking and being is called perception”.

the Objectivity consists in the universality of the Subjectiveness: The kind of statement that has made psychoanalysts attentive to Coleridge; notwithstanding his different application of it to religion and poetry.

Religion…Historical Fact…the Identity of both: See also 4711 f131^v and n. The form of the argument here is reminiscent of Steffens in the first few pages of the Grundzüge just cited, but Steffens wrote of the mutual identification of history and nature, not religion.

f131 co-inherence: See 4713n, 4644 and n.

Shakespeare, in all things the divine opposite…of the divine Milton’.

Cf the better-known statement at the close of Chap XV BL (CC) II 28.

the fit…Reader identifies himself: Borrowing from Milton’s “fit though few”: Paradise Lost VII 31. On Coleridge’s own special identification with Hamlet this is one of many statements, from the well-known “I have a smack of Hamlet myself if I may say so” (TT 24 June 1827) to subtler analyses in some of the lectures; see ShC II 192–8, 209– 10, 229, 272–3. See also CN II 3215 on Shakespeare, on Dreams. The marginalia on Hamlet are also full of personal implications; see ShC I 18–40.

unified into a Dream: Cf CN III 4409 makes some additions here in respect of the nature of the dream.

extra arbitrium: “outside the dictates of custom”.

4715 29.199 On Discourse as opposed to Reason: See CN III 3293, 3801 and n. In CN III 4377 he found a simile for the contrast.

opposite, contrary to: See App A. A new symbol“disparate from,” is here introduced thoughfrequent in CN III, reappears in 5290.

Inopem me copia fecit: “Abundance has beggared me” from Ovid’s Metamorphoses; see CN I 1383 and n, also CN III 4400 and n.

Petrus de Mastricht: In his Theoretico-practica theologia (new ed 2 vols Utrecht 1699) 144.

Tr: In God’s intelligence there are two more aspects, diverse according to our way of thinking: the presence of the ideas and the reflexion of these [or their perception] from which the intelligence of God can hardly be more accurately defined than as the most perfect intuition of himself or of his ideas. But without any reception of the ideas or passivity of the intellect, without any composition or division, without any discourse— because those involve imperfection, which must be carefully dissociated from the most perfect.

Coleridge omitted seu perceptio, here in square brackets translated.

Gassendi: The reference is to Gassendi Animadversiones in decimum librum Diogenis Laertii, qui est de υita moribus placitisque Epicurii (3rd ed 2 vols Lyons 1675) II 56. Gassendi reads:

An-non potius Deum intelligentem sic concipere ut…cum v. c. nos multa offusi caligine nihil sincere perspiciamus, sed gradatim unum post aliud et deducendo varia per varias consequutiones cognoscamus; ipse intuitu simplici, et nihil ratiocinatione indigens, intelligat omnia.

Thus Coleridge has condensed Gassendi, making his subordinate into main clauses, making “multa” into “many things” instead of “much [darkness]”, and adding “per discursum” and all the underlinings. Tr (of Coleridge’s version):

We acquire knowledge of many things gradually, one thing at a time and by deducing various matters through various processes of thought, but he (God) understands everything by simple intuition, having no need of ratiocination by discourse.

Coleridge’s addition makes it clear that ratiocinatio is “understanding” not “reason”.

Limborch: The correct reference is Lib II Cap VIII § XXXIV. The English translation by William Jones, Compleat System of Divinity (1713) is abridged and does not contain this passage. Tr: “God knows everything by simple intuition through pure and simple intelligence. For God does not, like men, use discursive reasoning: for all discursive reasoning smacks of imperfection”.

Leibnitz Nouv[eaux] Ess[ais]sur l’Ent[endement] Humain…Liv. IV. Chap. XVII.: The work, but not this passage, was quoted in the first paragraph of Chap IX BL (CC) I 141. Coleridge recommended it to a Mr Pryce Jr in April 1818. CL IV 851. See also CM I 82 under Anderson (Copy C)

& Milton “with three hundred others”: Milton in Paradise Lost V 487–90; see Chap X BL (CC) I 173–4.

4716 29.200 the inveterate usage of borrowing from the French & Latin only: Did Coleridge initiate—he certainly encouraged—the modern development in favour of Saxon-derived over other-derived words? See e.g., CN III 3302.

in sensu morali: “in the moral sense”.

f129^v Contents…Inhalt, or Inhold: On Coleridge’s liking for German prefixes, see CN II 3160, also “Satyrane’s Letters” III: BL (CC) II 197–8. In the Logic (CC) III he says, “owing to the awkwardness of the plural word ‘contents’ and the ambiguity of the singular ‘content’ we shall henceforward employ the term ‘matter’ as the antithesis of form and as answering to the Inhalt (Inhold of the German)”.

nomen generale: “the generic term”.

Milton’s Elephants indorsed with towers: Paradise Regained III 329: “Chariots or Elephants endorst with Towers”.

4717 29.201 Mem…alles Bewüsstein durch das Bewüsstein meiner Selbst bedingt sey: It is an odd slip of the pen twice to mis-spell Be-wüsstsein. Probably Coleridge’s own German, but in notebook dialogue with someone—Kant, Schelling, or possibly Heinroth; see 5432. Consciousness and Self-consciousness were to receive increasing attention from Coleridge through the 1820s. In CN III some interesting relevant entries are 3605, 4186; in gradations of consciousness see CN III 3362 and the reference in 3362n.

scire truncum arboris…arborem cum se: “be conscious of the trunk of a tree with its branches” as well as “of itself with the tree” or “the tree with itself”?

Self-sentience, Self-percipience…conpercipience: The first use of sentience in OED is dated 1839. Percipience is given one example earlier than this one. Conpercipience does not appear in OED. Coleridge in his Op Max (MS) III f140, f142 carried on a similar discussion of consciousness including these fresh-minted terms.

4718 29.202 preferred…intensed…to intended, and intensify to intend: Coleridge does not here deal with the point that intended and intend already were appropriated for other use; cf his apology for using intensify in Chap VII BL (CC) I 127n, cited in OED as the first use. He there said “intensify” sounded “uncouth” to his ear (but Dickens and George Eliot followed him in using it). His intensed (meaning “intensified”), which is classified in OED as “obs,” is a choice reflecting this express distaste.

4719 28.48 f52^v Coleridge’s writing in Greek the phrase “Method of Research on Hydrophobia” may be simply casual; or, as it was James Gillman’s subject, did he wish for some reason (or from the addict’s tendency to sporadic secretiveness) to conceal his reflections here? On his interest in hydrophobia see above 4514n.

Vorregungen: “antecedent stirrings”.

f53 potenziation: Coleridge’s coinage; see above 4645, 4624 and nn.

Saliva…as poisonous: Coleridge’s notes on Steffens Beyträge attack Steffens’s ignorance of how poisons act on the sensibility. On 1 75–7 he wrote:

Steffens forgot or did not know that the irritants and functions of the Brain & Senses are characteristic of Hydrophoby. The rabious Saliva of the Dog acts on the Sensibility in the Irritable System so intensely as to commence a metamorphosis, the muscles usurping the functions of the Nerves. The Sensibility wrestles with the Irrity to which it ought to be [?subjugate] as its fuel or sustenance as the nerve-knots to the muscles in brainless Insects.

However, much of the discussion of vegetable and animal poisons that follows derives, though strongly assimilated, from Steffens Beyträge 74–7.

Egyptian Gecko: The poisonous saliva of this Egyptian lizard is referred to by travellers but probably Coleridge had the example from K&S (see 4879 foll and nn). “Letter XXIII" there on the “Motions of Insects” refers to the tiny and often tame Gecko walking against gravity, up walls; Coleridge would associate it with the harmless little lizards in which he took pleasure in Malta (CN II 2144, 2177, 2195). K&S (II 325 fn) report, quoting J.H.B.St Pierre, A Voyage to the Mauritius …(1775) that “The Gecko is very frequent at Cairo…that it exhales a very deleterious poison from the lobuli between the toes. He saw two women and a girl at the point of death, merely from eating a cheese on which it had dropped its venom.” From the care with which Coleridge took notes from K&S in N 23 one may fairly assume this as his source here.

f53 the Euphorbias: Many species comprising the spurge genus, all of which produce a milky sap.

Lettuce Opium: OED quotes A. Duncan M.D. for the term, in 1816; “a substance which I have denominated Lactucarium, or Lettuce Opium”: Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society (1819) II 312. See also 4624 f20 and n.

Lactuca υiridis: “green lettuce/garden lettuce”.

affinity to Azote obtained by its animalization: In the ascent of life an affinity to nitrogen appears in poisons produced by animals.

as Opium to Carb[on] + Hyd[rogen]—So the Adder,…&c. Poison may be to Azote + Pthoric Gas (Fluoric): I.e. as Opium, a vegetable poison, is to carbon plus hydrogen, so animal poisons (as from the hooded cobra) may be to nitrogen and fluorine. See 4565 and n. f53^v two Principles of Classif[ication] First & Highest, the Powers…: See 4541 and n.

I…follow Moses: I.e. adopt a natural classification based on the Mosaic cosmogony. Coleridge has been seeking in this N 28 and N 27 to combine a system of powers with Genesis I and here applies the combination to zoology. See the classification scheme in 4724; also on Fish, Insects, Birds. Mammalia, &c. see TL esp 74–84. Cf on the absence of elements in OT, 5434 below.

f54 my Plan comprizes Oken’s & Steffens’s: Oken in his Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie (1809) argued that the “classes” mineral, vegetable, and animal should be arranged according to the principal organs or anatomical systems. As each of them— mineral, vegetable, and animal—began from the one beneath it, all developed parallel to one another, i.e. the organs were: skin (touch), tongue (taste), nose (respiration & smell), ear (hearing), and eyes (sight); the corresponding classes were invertebrates, fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals, in parallel progression upwards. See below 4813 and n.

In his later Zoologie: Lehrbuch der N aturgeschichte V, VI (1815–16) Oken arranged genera and species according to these principles of classification, which led to animals becoming nobler in rank the greater the number of organs liberated or severed from the Grand animal (i.e. the animal kingdom thought of as one animal) and entering into combination. This, although having something remotely in common with Coleridge’s principle of individuation, here and in TL, was too fanciful, and too dependent on a scheme of organization rather than on a concept of development of powers, to be satisfactory to Coleridge. Oken’s “fictions” included the notion that all organic beings were built of protoplasmic cells, and that man, having all five kinds of organs, comprised the whole animal kingdom himself.

Steffens is much closer to Coleridge’s classification. In his Beyträge, of which Coleridge made considerable use in TL, he uses as his basis the powers of reproduction, irritability, and sensibility, and says that nature seeks the most individual formation. He presents plants and animals as in two juxtaposed columns in nature. He ignores the Mosaic sequence and hence the classification Coleridge adumbrates here (ff53v–54). The principal difference is that Coleridge’s polarity principle enables him to make vitalist sense of e.g. sensibility, and irritability, and thus to propose a dynamic for his classification. See 4724.

4720 28.49 Marietti versus Brown: The Marietti family were Queen Caroline’s bankers in Milan; T.H.Browne was appointed by the Prince Regent in 1818 a member of the “Milan Commission” to investigate her domestic life. A distinguished officer, Browne was accused of suborning evidence. Coleridge seems to imply that the Marietti made calculating use of the Queen’s need of them, defending themselves with Prudential Proverbs.

two classes—Honor—Castlereagh Goodness, Piety=Sidmouth: Coleridge, in trying to analyse the public effect of moral turpitude in high places, attacks as elsewhere (5057) the falseness of negative virtue, seen here as of two kinds. Both flattered the King out of self-interest, Castlereagh on the pretence of Honor, Sidmouth by paying lip service to conventional Goodness and Piety (see 4772 and n). They won public esteem in these ways, in spite of the known debaucheries of the King. See also 4803n.

In each County…what a tantum non omneity: A majority only just short of all. On Coleridge’s concern at this time about the changing proportions of landed and popular interests, see 4684 and n; also C&S (CC) e.g. 28–9, 63–4.

f55 Earl of Newcaster [a slip for Newcastle]: William Cavendish, the first duke (1592–1676), raised numerous armies at his own expense in the Stuart cause, thereby impoverishing himself.

4721 28.50 Down to the end of the first paragraph the entry was written in pencil and traced over in ink in Mrs Gillman’s hand.

Eloquence; see also 4637 and n.

Proecipitandus est liber Spiritus: “The free spirit must be swept along/ plunge headlong”. Petronius Satyricon 118; also used in TT 14 May 1833.

order and progression: Cf The Friend (CC) 1 449–76, the essays on “Method”, esp 457, 476.

4722 28.51 The entry is largely a translation of Oken’s concluding paragraphs in Part iii of his Zoologie, Sect 2 N aturgeschichte VI 1233–4. Coleridge’s first paragraph is a translation, in Oken’s order, of his remarks on man as part of the whole animal kingdom, except that he enriched Oken’s description of the elephant and the hyena (“der gross müthigste Elephant und die hungerigste Hyäne”), and he inserted the lordliest Lion & the most υenal Jackall.

Coleridge’s second paragraph is Oken’s subsequent list of four kinds of men: “Sylvan mensch, Schwarzer,…Satyr mensch…Rother… Faunmensch, Gelber…Panmensch, Weisser….” Oken then asked, “Warum gibt’s keine grüne und blaue Menschen?” (“Why are there no green and blue men?”) This is the last sentence of the work.

blue is the negative Pole…. Green, the Synthesis: See 4855, 5290, 5446, 5447, where Coleridge developed his dynamic theory of colours as powers. Cf also TT 24 April 1832.

4723 28.52 In pencil, part traced over in ink by Coleridge himself.

Stercore fucatus Crocidili: This phrase from Horace, Epode 12.11, is quoted by Oken in his description of the crocodile in his Zoologie Pt III § 2: Naturgeschichte VI 297 (misprinted 397): “[her face] made up with crocodile’s dung”. From some editions of Horace, including LCL, the poem is omitted as indecent. Coleridge’s information in this paragraph may come from the same page of Oken, but the Warane comes on p 315. See 4722 and n.

The “The sham saints”

Sidemouthry Yare…mouthry: References to Viscount Sidmouth, Henry Addington (see above 4720 and n), who retired from the Home Secretaryship in 1821, and perhaps to a member for Yarmouth? Or do the words describe two kinds of political talkers—the one out of the side of the mouth,the “yare” mouth, of the ready and voluble speaker, with the suggestion in yard of mob eloquence?

The Plumage of the…Colibri & Bird of Paradise: Two “Kolibri” are described by Oken, the American hummingbird and the European firecrest (ibid VI 372–5, 433); the “Paradiesvogel” is also discussed (VI 463–4) but not as providing fans for Malays. Coleridge objects (in a MS note on Oken’s p 466) that he is not thorough enough and that Blumenbach is better.

An ax he met her os!: in Greek, “anax hemeteros”=“our king”. On os (09) and wordplay on the Latin for face, bone, mouth, see 4749 and n.

+Castellum re age: “act the castle indeed”. As this is dog latin for “Castlereagh”, Foreign Secretary, the entry must probably be dated before his death in 1822; see 4720, and for an earlier attack, CN III 4258 and n.

Trochilus, by Herodotus, the Charadrius Ægyptius of Mod. Ornithol[ogists]: Herodotus (2.68) writing of the crocodile tells how, “whenever the crocodile comes ashore out of the water and then opens its mouth …the sandpiper goes into its mouth and eats the leeches; the crocodile is pleased by this service and does the Trochilus [sandpiper] no harm”. Tr A.D.Godley (LCL 1920–4). The efts or newts are Coleridge’s addition, no doubt to make his joke about the crocodile as the monstrous “King-Eft”.