Robert Garnock was born in Stirling, and baptised by the faithful Mr James Guthrie. In his younger years, his parents took much pains to train him up in the way of duty; but soon after the Restoration, the faithful ministers being turned out, curates were put in their place, and with them came ignorance, profanity, and persecution.—Some time after this, Mr Law preached at his own house in Monteith, and one Mr Hutchison sometimes at Kippen. Being one Saturday’s evening gone out to his grandmother’s house in the country, and having an uncle who frequented these meetings, he went along with him to a place called Shield-brae.— And next Sabbath he went with him through great difficulty, being then but young, through frost and snow, and heard Mr Law at Monteith: which sermon, through a divine blessing, wrought much upon his mind.—Thus he continued for a considerable time, to go out in the end of the week for an opportunity of hearing the gospel, and to return in the beginning of next week to Stirling: but he did not let his parents know any thing of the matter.

But one time hearing a proclamation read at the cross, exhibiting, that all who did not hear, or receive privileges from the curates, were to be severely punished; which much troubled his mind, making him hesitate whether to go to a field-preaching that he had heard was to be next Sabbath, or not. But at last he came to this resolution; says he, ‘The Lord inclined my heart to go, and put that word to me, Go for once, go for all, if they take thee for that which is to come. So I went there, and the Lord did me good: for I got that sermon, that which although they had rent me in a thousand pieces, I would not have said what I had said before. So the Lord made me follow the gospel for a long time; and though I knew little then what I meant, yet he put it in my heart still to keep by the honest side, and not to comply or join with enemies of one kind or another; yea, not to watch, ward, or strengthen their hands any manner of way. When I was asked, why I would not keep watch (or stand sentry) on the town, as it was commanded duty? I told them, I would not lift arms against the work of God. If I ever carried arms, it should be for the defence of the gospel.’

Now he became a persecuted man, and was obliged to leave the town. His father being a blacksmith, he had learned the same trade, and so he went some time to Glasgow, and followed his occupation. From Glasgow he returned home; and from thence went again to Borrowstounness, where he had great debate, as himself expresses it,—‘about that woful indulgence: I did not know the dreadful hazard of hearing them, until I saw they preached at the hazard of men’s lives. This made me examine the matter, until I found out that they were directly wrong, and contrary to Scripture, had changed their head, had quitted Jesus Christ as their head, and had taken their commission from men, owning that perjured adulterous wretch as head of the Church; receiving their commission to preach in such and such places from him, and those bloody thieves under him.’

Ecclesia Phænomenon…Ecclesia Noumenon: “the Church as institution…the Church as Idea”: see 5263 and n. See also 5082n.

5040 30.11 Coleridge’s condensation of the opening paragraph of “Mr John Blackadder”, Biographia Scoticana (ed cit 5038n) 423.

5041 30.12 Swift at the beginning of Sect VIII of A Tale of a Tub wrote: “The Learned Aeolists, maintain the Original Cause of all Things to be Wind, from which Principle this whole Universe was at first produced.” Coleridge’s excerpt, as he says, is adapted from Sect XI:

Jack had not only calculated the first Revolutions of his Brain so prudently, as to give rise to that Epidemick Sect of Aeolists, but succeeding also into a new and strange Variety of Conceptions, the Fruitfulness of his Imagination led him into certain Notions, which, although in Appearance very unaccountable, were not without their Mysteries and their Meanings, nor wanted Followers to countenance and improve them. I shall therefore be extremely careful and exact in recounting such material Passages of this Nature, as I have been able to collect, either from undoubted Tradition, or indefatigable Reading; and shall describe them as graphically as it is possible, and as far as Notions of that Height and Latitude can be brought within the Compass of a Pen. Nor do I question, but they will furnish Plenty of noble Matter for such whose converting Imaginations

…etc (1704) 195–6–as Coleridge has it, with minor variants in spelling and capitalization. Coleridge’s edition is not known. He made use of this passage in AR 75.

5042 30.13 ψΣΣE: RS; see 4985, also 5054, 5026 and nn.

liberticidal: OED attributes liberticide to RS The Vision of the Maid of Orleans (1793) II 328 a line which may have been written by Coleridge. The Preface to Joan of Arc (1796), in which it was removed, does not make the facts quite clear.

Coleridge was perhaps objecting to the defence of Laud in The Book of the Church II 359–71 (published Feb 1824), the disregard of his notorious severity, and the charge that “whatever Laud did was maliciously interpreted”. Chap VIII (1824). As with Cranmer, RS attributed whatever excesses Laud was guilty of to the general heritage of the times.

Coleridge from his wide reading about Laud appears to have believed that Laud continued, as he himself declared, to be an orthodox high Anglican, and that his extremes lay, not in his dogmas or his insistence on ceremonial rites, but in his zeal for the political power of churchmen, and his readiness to persecute moderate Anglicans as well as Calvinists. See above in 5009 Coleridge’s dislike of the base Spirit of the Laudite Faction in his own day as he saw it, i.e. the clerical politicians in their literary Implement the Quarterly Review.

5043 30.14 Improving on H.F.Cary’s translation (see CN III 4498 and n) which here reads:

And suddenly upon the day appeared A day new-risen.

5044 30.15 Coleridge was restive under Hume’s injunctions, probably in his essay on “The Stoic”: Begin by curing yourself of this lethargic indolence; the task is not difficult…. Your indolence itself becomes a fatigue…and ere yet the body, full of noxious humours, feels the torment of its multiplied diseases, your nobler part is sensible of the invading prison, and seeks in vain to relieve its anxiety by new pleasures which still augment the fatal malady”. The Philosophical Works of David Hume (Edinburgh 1826) III 169.

5045 30.16 Hephæstion (d 324 B.C.) and Clitus Mela (d 328 B.C.) were friends of Alexander the Great; the first died rich and full of honours; the second was slain at a banquet by Alexander (whose life he once saved) for criticising Alexander for despotism. Plutarch Life of Alex-ander 50, 51. Plutarch Lives tr R.B.Perrin (LCL II vols 1914–26). Both deaths were much lamented by Alexander, as Coleridge remembered from school days. BL (CC) I 10.

5046 30.17 See 5055 (and 5049) for additional evidence that Lucy Aikin’s anti- Baconian Memoirs of the Court of King James the First (2 vols 1822) lay behind this entry. Coleridge was objecting to her palliation of Shakespeare’s supposed offences against morals by calling them the “vices of his age” in Chap XIV (II 29). In Chap IV she described the first interview between the king and Francis Bacon, where she referred to “that base desertion of his benefactor Essex” as being “an error, relatively to the favor of James and his [Bacon’s] prospects at the new court, of which he now diligently set himself to obviate the effects”. I 109. Bacon’s intrigues against Coke as Lord Chief Justice, long his rival in law if not in eloquence, ending in Coke’s dismissal, take up most of Chap XV (II 30–76). The long servile begging letters are quoted fully, those to the king and to Buckingham. As presented there is little indication of any zeal for the stability of the Realm. See also 5051 and n.

f13^v Ipse υolo…υoluntas: “I myself wish it—let the royal will take the place of law”. Cf the often-quoted Juvenal Satire 6 233 “Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas”. Cf also 5241 f30^v.

f14 Whether I have not over-rated Lord Bacon’s Genius…: E.g. in Vol III of the 1818 Friend (CC) I esp 482–93, and in many other nonpolitical contexts, as “the British Plato”.

Genius…Talents: See ibid I 419–23. But the distinction was an earlier one with Coleridge; see CN I 669.

nimis: “too much”.

Maxims—N.b.seldom Principles: See CN I 1722 and n; also The Friend (CC) I 112, 118, 42411; also C&S (CC) 67, 84 n 2.

5047 30.18 The word diverró (for “di vero”?) and the cancellation of egli (twice) is written in pencil; the rest of the entry is in a smaller hand with a finer pen and at a different slant from 5046, but By the bye is continued on the same line as the last five words of 5046, a postscript by association or suggestion?

Tr: Without a doubt our poor unfortunate Henry either is insane already or will <indeed> be so. If he is not mad he’s wicked, indeed most wicked: he is not wicked therefore he is mad. Shall I tell his excellent mother this presentiment of mine, or rather my complete conviction?

Henry may be HNC; Coleridge may not have known that this same charge had been levelled against himself by his brothers, especially James; see CN III 3277n. HNC was the sixth son of Coleridge’s brother James and Frances Duke Taylor. He had a reputation for youthful brilliance at Eton and Cambridge and high spirits that tended to run away with him, shocking the elders of the family. See Bernard Lord Coleridge The Story of a Devonshire House Chap X. See also 5402 and n. Although Henry was without means, and without good health, the words mad and wicked are rather too strong to express Coleridge’s attitude towards his affectionate nephew’s plan to marry his cousin, Sara. See 5424 and n.

On the other hand, little Henry Gillman, but nine years old at this date, is more likely our poor unfortunate Henry, whose behaviour bewildered his teachers and his parents; see 5310, 5424, 5457 and nn.

5048 30.19 Faith…Will and the Reason: There are numerous statements on this subject in Coleridge’s writings, many brought together in the Essay on Faith: LR IV 425– 38; see also 4611 above.

Eye…Light…Sun analogy. See e.g. CN II 2164, 2921. That Faith is a moral & not an intellectual act (CN III 3678) is a central conviction for Coleridge; see 5347, CN III 3886 and nn.

The second paragraph summarizes his objections to various forms of superstition including bibliolatry, a subject developed particularly in his CIS.

5049 30.20 Coleridge was reading Lucy Aikin Memoirs of the Court of King James the First (5046 and n).

Their Villiers may have been suggested by her description of George Villiers as James’s “cup-bearer at large” (115), notoriously a profligate (II 138). See also 5051.

5050 30.21 In De intellectus emendatione (ed and tr A.Boyle 1910) Prop XXXVIII Note Spinoza said “death is the less harmful the more the mind’s knowledge is clear and distinct, and consequently the more the mind loves God”. And Prop XL is: “The more perfection anything has, the more active and less passive it is; and contrariwise, the more active it is, the more perfect it becomes”.

In the Ethics also, Pt V Prop XXI–XXIII, XXXVIII–XLII the subject is treated, but Spinoza’s terms are not Will or Personeity. Personeity is Coleridge’s word (5256), which Spinoza might well have coveted by anticipation; he uses “essence of the mind” and such phrases.

5051 30.22 Bacon’s fall is described here after Lucy Aikin’s Memoirs of the Court of King James the First (5046) II 204–23.

(last p. of last L. but one): I.e. 5046 f14.

spring (Federkraft): See CN III 3320, 3556, 4291 and nn; and above 4926 and n, and in numerous other contexts.

f15^v ostensibly punished for comparative Trifles: Aikin II 214–17; Bacon was charged with twenty-eight counts of bribery, which he could have explained away as the usual “compliments” offered to one in his position; his punishment was set at a fine of £40,000, imprisonment in the Tower, exclusion from public office, and banishment from Parliament.

profligate Ganymede: I.e. Villiers, whose extortions in the patents for the licensing of inns, the licensing of hostelries, and the manufacture of gold thread had aroused public and Parliamentary anger; Aikin II 206–8.

Williams’s sagacity saw…: Aikin II 208–10; Parliament was about to deal with the “rapacious monopolies” of Villiers, and Buckingham succumbed to the King’s idea of dissolving Parliament as a means of defence, but John Williams, Lord Keeper and Archbishop, wrote him suggesting that he pretend to go along with Parliament and name “those empty fellows Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michael” as culprits, letting them become “victims to the public wrath”; the implication is that Williams’s sagacity saw that the King, along with the Favorite Buckingham, might be the far higher Victim, a consideration that Bacon seemed to ignore in agreeing to the rash scheme of dissolving Parliament and thus having the charges against him dissolved with it.

5052 30.23 The True and the Good: See also 5132. On the difficulty of Truth Coleridge often expatiated; see e.g. the three columns of references to Truth in The Friend (CC) Index.

aversion to truth…in a twilight of Consciousness: Hence the need of “the increase of Consciousness” SM:LS (CC) 89.

an Irvine: Edward Irving? See 4963n.

f16^v the Parable of the Talents: Matt 25:14–30.

have you ever tried to make your Flock understand the articles: Of the failure of the clergy to educate the Many, see below 5059 and n.

5053 30.24 The Greek capital letters spell “Jane Harding”, Mrs Gillman’s “most unmrsgillmanly” sister (CL V 139); Lucy, the other sister, was more “amiable” (CL VI 644). Cf CL V 251. Jane sometimes accompanied Mrs Gillman and Coleridge to Ramsgate but in the autumn of 1824 Mrs Gillman apparently discouraged her. CL V 392– 3.

5054 30.25… μεγιστοι: “Southey un-der the guise of historian, Raleigh and other very great [historians]”: Cf 5042; of RS as an historian Coleridge was at times laudatory, at times critical e.g. TT 26 June 1831. On Coleridge’s use of Ralegh’s History of the World see CN II 3079 and subsequent entries there.

acts and manners judged of by present feelings: “…it is unfair as well as unwise to censure the men of an age for want of that which was above their age”, Coleridge said in a note on the margin of Hacket’s Life of Lord Keeper Williams (1693). See also 5252 on historians.

In his Book of the Church, RS made extended excuses for James I (II 338–41), and for Charles II (II 472–3). Broadly, he contended that James I was in advance of his age in learning, tolerance, charity, and social sense of responsibility, and that Charles II was sincere and impartial in promising liberty of conscience.

5055 30.26 Inconsist[ency] in Miss Aikins concluding Chapter: See 5049 and n; towards the end of Chap XXV Lucy Aikin referred with appreciative respect to King James’s initiative and learning in promoting the new translation of the Bible (1611), but she wrote sneeringly of his wit, his poems, his vanity in polemic, and concluded by saying “the praise of good intention is the utmost that can be conceded to a prince so habitually swayed by fear, by prejudice and by private affections”. It is Coleridge who sees James as the least of four evils; “an Angel compared with his Son and Grandsons”, he said in a marginal note on Hacket’s Scrinia Reserata, a Life of John Williams (1693) 88.

5056 30.27 the first Reformers: I.e. of the school of Luther; the new Remonstrant theology under Arminius was also called “Reformed”.

the ever-stretching Arminianism: See 5200 and n. In The Friend (1818) Coleridge was “tempted to characterize high Calvinism as (comparatively) a lamb in wolf’s skin, and strict Arminianism as approaching the reverse”, and said that he was himself equidistant from both. Friend (CC) I 434. See also a long note on Calvinism in Southey’s Life of Wesley printed in the Oxford edition (1925) I 270–1; see 5370 and n.

Coleridge reverses traditional views here, Calvinism e.g. at the end of the 16th century being rigidly dogmatic and narrow, whereas Arminianism, reacting against the doctrines of election and reprobation in particular, began with more liberal and concessive views of the individual will, stressing moral obligation rather than obedience to the arbitrary.

For other instances of his further suggestion that the conflicts of power now are less over divine authority in whomever vested and more over economic power, see 4838, 5330 and nn.

f18^v Landed, or Major-baronial’, Influence in the House: As contrasted with the Franklings, the “minor barons”; see C&S (CC) 26 etc. For anxiety as to the overweight of the powerful landed interests, the element of Permanence over the decay of the borough system and relative loss of representation of the urban element of Progression see 4684 and C&S (CC) 24–9.

On the other hand the last paragraph appears to question the safety of entrusting the management of the national economy to the public opinion of the more recently educated and the new population of the cities. Cf LS (CC) 169–70.

f19 the so-called National Debt: A review in QR (for Apr 1822) XXVII 239–67 of An Address to the Members of the House of Commons, upon the Necessity of Reforming our Financial System, and Establishing an Efficient Sinking Fund for the Reduction of the National Debt; with the Outline of a Plan for that Purpose. By One of Themselυes stated that the amount of the National Debt on 5 Jan 1822 was £836, 905, 901. For another remark on the national debt, in an entry dated 3 Mar 1822, see 4874.

The review was a blow struck for the farmers and landowners, on the injustice of land taxation. It certainly did not contribute to any clear conclusion, but if Coleridge read it, it could have raised questions in his mind as to the correctness of his assessment of the agricultural influences in economic policy.

5057 30.28 The ’Ussean Overrators of the Performance of negative Duties: See above 5042 and n. Whether specifically Southey or a Southeylike moralist-historian is intended, or a more general fling at a kind of rigid censoriousness Coleridge objected to in RS (CN I 1815, 1816) is not clear. Charles’s [Charles I] personal non-immorality is frequently commented on by historians. For Coleridge on virtue, private or public, as involving more than mere abstinence see an early entry on RS himself, CN I 1815.

i.e. Re Netto-ism: Used also in 5398 and n. From the Italian Re for “King” and netto, “clear, distinct”, i.e. “King-only-ism”.

the darker charges, that Bishop Hackett thought right to suppress: The charge that Laud had once performed a marriage between a lord and a lady who had deserted her husband, i.e. a bigamous marriage? Not mentioned in Hackett’s Scrinia Reserata but referred to, with no names mentioned, by Lucy Aikin (op cit 5049) II 256.

f19^v Philip Baboon: A punning reference to Philip of Bourbon, i.e. Philip V (1683– 1746) of Spain, alluding to his imbecility. Cf EOT (CC) II 92. He was weak, and irresolute, a notoriously incapable monarch.

5058 30.29 Like 5049 and 5055, this is a reflection on reading Lucy Aikin’s Memoirs…of James the First. She described (I 184–95) James’s first public speech on his ascent to the throne of England, in which he urged not only a union of Scotland and England, but of the Anglican episcopacy with the Scottish church, and both with Rome. Her quotations supported Coleridge’s view of James as a despot less interested in faith and doctrine than in power.

f20 A renunciation…Pope: The “one special point of their [R.C.] doctrine” he would not tolerate was “that arrogant and ambitious supremacy of their head the pope”, who “not only claims to be spiritual head of all christians but also to have an imperial civil power over all kings and emperors, dethroning and decrowning princes with his foot as pleaseth him…. The other point which they observe in continual practice, is the assassinates and murders of kings.” (I 185).

a few quibbling qualifications…: Aikin quotes James on “some opinions of popery…in the questions of the real presence or in the number of sacraments, or some such school question.” (I 257).

puritan-hating—& fearing Scot “worthy of fire”: “We justly confess, that many papists, especially our forefathers, laying their trust only upon Christ and his merits at their last breath, may be and oftentimes are saved; detesting in that point, and thinking the puritans worthy of fire, that will admit no salvation to any papist” (ibid).

5059 30.91 necrosis ecclesiastica: “gangrene of the church”. See also 5082, 5240 and nn.

f59^v the indifference of the Clergy…: Cf No 12 The Friend 9 Nov 1809: (CC) II 165– 6; C&S (CC) 61–4.

f59 Did Christ intend a Church? On the meaning of a church see above 5020, 5039, 5082, and nn.

f58^v take his Yoke upon us: Matt 11:29–30.

mutual watchfulness…Discipline: Cf the discussion of Moravian practices in CN III 4169 and n.

f58 By this shall ye be known…: John 13:35.

f57^v Priestley, Price, and others’. In his Miscellaneous Observations Relating to Education (Bath 1788) 28–37 Priestley discussed the professions of “Theology, Medicine, and Law”, going on to those of soldier, farmer, manufacturer, and merchant, in terms that may have suggested Coleridge’s complaint here. Of what passage in Price (or others) Coleridge may have been thinking is not evident. Both writers were writing and written about so extensively in periodicals that the reference is probably compound and a generalization.

f57 Idea of a State: See 5034 and n, and C&S (CC) 35–6, 85–91, 233–4.

Psophist: Noise-monger; on the love of psophy, derived from (noise), there is a marginal note on Hooker Works 86–7: CM II.

Hüber: see above 4833 and n. SM:LS (CC) 19n, with attention also to AR 210, 212– 14.

Smeaton: Smeathman? See CN II 2693 and n; also SM:LS (CC) 19n where in a marginal annotation the same confusion is noticed.

5060 30.92 Burnet in his History of the Reformation of the Church of England (ed cit 5082 below) recounted in Vol I Pt II Bk I (1731) 85–6, how Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury pressed the young Edward VI, then (1549) eleven years old, to sign a warrant for the burning of Joan of Kent (Joan Bocher), and similarly of George van Parre, she having denied the Virgin Birth, and he the deity of Christ:

And in all the Books published in Queen Mary’s days, justifying her severity against the Protestants, these instances were made use of: and no part of Cranmer’s Life exposed him more than this did. It was said he had consented both to Lambert’s and Anne Askew’s death, in the former Reign, who both suffered for Opinions which he himself held now: and he had now procured the death of these two Persons, and when he was brought to suffer himself afterwards it was called a just retaliation of him. One thing was certain that what he did in this matter flowed from no cruelty of temper in him, no Man being further from that black disposition of Mind; but it was truly the effect of those Principles by which he governed himself.

Coleridge’s affectionate admiration for Cranmer is clear in No 4 The Friend (CC) II 55 where he was classed with the Hampdens and Sidneys. His Heresies, chiefly his rejection of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, discussed by Burnet in Pt II Bk 2 (esp 185, 209–12, 250), were naturally magnified in him as Archbishop of Canterbury.

f56 Tertullian…Idiotæ: See CN III 3675 and n.

the Appendices, to the first and third Gospels: The birth stories of Jesus, which Coleridge considered merely prefixed to Matt and Luke; see e.g. CN III 3779, and below 5075, 5240 f28 and nn.

Coleridge’s page reference to the question from Burnet in the History of the Reformation of the Church of England Vol. II, p. 112 appears to be an error; actually he turned back for phrases here to Vol I 85, quoted above.

Queen Mary and St Dominic: In Pt II Bk I Burnet described how:

in the end of the 12, and in the Beginning of the 13th Century, a Company of Simple and innocent Persons in the Southern Parts of France, being disgusted with the Corruptions both of the Popish Clergy and of the publick Worship, seperated from their Assemblies; and then Dominick and his Brethren-Preachers, who came among them to convince them, finding their Preaching did not prevail, betook themselves to that way, that was sure to silence them. They perswaded the Civil Magistrates to burn all such as were judged Obstinate Hereticks. That they might do this by a Law, the Fourth Council of Lateran did Decree, that all Hereticks should be delivered to the Secular Power to be extirpated; (they thought not fit to speak out, but by the Practice it was known that Burning was that which they meant;)…was the Death they made choice of, because Witches, Wizards, and Sodomites had been so executed. Therefore to make Heresie appear a terrible thing, this was thought the most proper Punishment of it. It had also a Resemblance of everlasting Burning, to which they adjudged their Souls, as well as their Bodies were condemned to the fire.

I 18 (ed cit).

Mary’s persecutions and burnings of heretics are described in Burnet’s second volume, Pt II Bk 2 (1731).

5061 30.93 excellent remark of Moses Maimonides: Tennemann VIII 44 In quotes the passage from More Neυochim (Guide of the Perplexed) Bk I, Chap 71. Coleridge quotes Tennemann var:

Tr: In sum, at first [all the Loquentes/Medabberim,] both the Greeks who became Christians and the Moslems, did not in establishing their premises follow or pay attention to the actual nature of the fact from which they took them, but considered only how the matter ought to be so as to confirm their opinion, or at least not to overthrow it; and when they discovered this, they boldly asserted that the matter stood thus and so, and adduced proofs for that fact and built principles upon it.

Tennemann’s quotation is in the context of scholastics who sought a philosophic basis for the belief in creation from nothing.

Grenville Penn: Granville Penn (1761–1844) wrote A Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies (2 vols 1822) to demonstrate that modern geology bore out the biblical accounts of the Creation and Flood. See 5119 and n.

D^r Coppleston: Edward Copleston (1776–1849) was provost of Oriel College, Oxford, during the period when Hartley lost his fellowship (see CL V 58–61, 72–77, and nn); he was an eminent and energetic educationist interested in the major topics of his day and wrote on the currency, poverty, R.C. emancipation; he would have been personally associated with the other Oxford dons.

Oxford Parsons…Prof. Buckland’s ante-diluvian Hyenas: William Buckland (1784– 1856) published his Reliquioe Diluvianæ; or Observations on the Organic Remains Contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on Other Geological Phenomena, Attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge (1823) also to confirm the biblical account of the Flood; his theory was based in part on the nature of animal remains found in Kirkdale caves of ante-diluvian hyenas; he reasoned that the presence of smaller bones might indicate merely the remains of prey of the hyenas, but the presence of larger ones indicated the crowding of larger animals into the caves to escape the Flood. He elaborated with a long disquisition on the habits of hyenas.

Buckland was Professor of Mineralogy from 1813, and of Geology from 1818 at Oxford and at once impressed the literalist clergy of the university with his methods of defending the biblical accounts with the use of scientific data. They rallied around him. See 5104 and n. Coleridge may well have had in mind the review of his Reliquioe Diluviancæ in QR (XXIX, Apr 1823, 138–65), which immediately preceded a review of Burnet’s History of his own Time, which review Coleridge read; see 5009 and n. The book was also reviewed in QJSLA XV No 30 (July 1823) 337–48. The controversy over Buckland’s work was a long one; see e.g. a review contemptuous of him and other Oxford Parsons in Phil Mag (1826) LVI 10–14: “Reflections on the Noachian Deluge, and on the Attempts lately made at Oxford, for connecting the same with present appearances”. The article attacked Buckland in particular, and his Inaugural Lecture of May 1819.

5062 30.94 All these names come together in Tennemann VIII 64–351, 484–550; Scotus Erigena, at VIII 64–98; Berengar Berengarius of Tours, at VIII 98–105; Hildebert of Lawarden, at VIII 106; Anselm, at VIII 114; Abelard, at VIII 170; Bernard St Bernard of Clairvaux, at VIII 205n; Hugo de Sancto Victore, at VIII 206; Richardus de Sancto Victore, at VIII 247; Robert Palleyn, at VIII 229; Johannes Salisburiensis John of Salisbury, at VIII 345; Bonaventura, at VIII 533–51; at VIII 543 Tennemann calls attention to his debt to Hugh and Richard of St Victor; Albertus Magnus, at VIII 484.

Hildebert on his Master, Berengarius: Tennemann VIII 106 quotes the epitaph on Berengarius (with dashes where Coleridge has dots indicating omitted lines); The lines quoted are 31–4, 45–6, 51–2. Coleridge intended to refer to the epitaph in Lect IX Phil Lects (1949); see 275 fn; also 435–6 n 27, where attention is called also to Coleridge’s Lines suggested by the last words of Berengarius PW I 460–61. In his Lines Coleridge writes in the same sympathetic vein as here, and with an emotional identification with the loneliness of these early thinkers that goes well beyond Tennemann’s range. In translation the lines read:

His care was to follow nature, keep the laws: To ban sin from his mind, guile from his lips; To prefer virtue to wealth, truth to falsehood, To say and to do nothing without sense… The envious lament the man they once attacked and hated; No less do they now praise and love him… When I die, may I live and rest with him, And may my lot be no better than his.

the whole Poem from Bulæus: Caesar Egassius Bulaeus Historia universitatis parisiensis (6 vols Paris 1665) I 481–2; I 471 was an erroneous page-reference by Tennemann. There seems to be no evidence that Coleridge ever obtained the book.

5063 30.95 Pontificial Divines: See 5202 and n.

Lord’s promise of a perpetuity of the Spirit: John 14:16, 26.

Sancto Spiritui υisum est et nobis: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”; from the Latin of Acts 15:28 in the Vulgate. Jeremy Taylor Polemical Discourses (1674) 984 quoted the words as the motto of the Apostolic Councils, which decided doctrinal questions.

Contemplatione…υisum est nobis: “By contemplation (that is, by spiritual intuition), then upon meditation and reflection, it seemed good to us”.

5064 30.96 Convocation: As Colmer pointed out in his edition of C&S (CC) 84, 99 and nn where Coleridge presented similar arguments, the ecclesiastical convocations that had existed from the eighth century onwards were prorogued in 1717 because of political intransigence, not to be re-convened until 1852. See also C&S (CC) 124.

f52^v religious instruction…for children…with an appropriate service…: The Sunday Schools founded by Robert Raikes (1735–1811) and others, including Hannah More, gave general elementary education in addition to teaching the catechism to the children of the poor who worked on weekdays. Coleridge must have been suggesting here something slightly different, possibly an imitation, at a junior level, of the Anglican service?

5065 30.30 those Divines…by historical proofs: Coleridge’s antipathy to this kind of defence, common among the orthodox in his day, runs throughout the Notebooks: see e.g. 5158, 5264 and n.

f21 Writings of Thomas Paine: See The Friend (CC) I 30, 32, 93, 178–9, 196, 209, 216, 228, where Coleridge takes note of the deleterious effects of Paine’s writings, particularly on the lower classes, The Rights of Man (1791–2), Age of Reason (1793).

f21^v more than Cobbett himself can do: For Coleridge’s animosity against Cobbett see e.g. CN II 1926, 2150 and nn, CN III 3836n, 3839, 4337n.

Grotius & Jer. Taylor…Paley and Bishop Watson: It is not unusual to find Coleridge putting Jeremy Taylor in this group of forensic defenders of Christianity from the 17th to the 19th century, frequently cited in CN. Cf e.g. a marginal note on Taylor’s Unum Necessarium: LR III 299.

5066 30.31 D^r. H.More, 368: Henry More An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness Bk X, Chap 12, “The Duty of the Christian Magistrate”: Theological Works (1708) 368; Coleridge’s annotated copy is in the BM.

Any inferiour Fellow may talk and prate Phrases and make Faces, but when a sober Man would be satisfied of the Grounds from whence they speak, he shall not have one Syllable or the least Tittle of an Answer, only they will talk big of the Spirit, and inveigh against Reason with bitter Reproaches, calling it carnal, though it be indeed no soft Flesh but hard and penetrant Steel, and such as pierces them to the very Heart.

the Kings Bench…common and written laws: The same analogy was used in AR 144. Before the reconstitution of the courts in 1873, the Court of the King’s Bench was the central court of common law which tried pleas before the Crown; the Chancery was the highest court of judicature under Parliament, presided over by the Lord Chancellor; the Court of Common Pleas was the second great central court of England, set apart for trial of litigations among citizens; the Court of Exchequer was the third highest court, with jurisdiction over matters of revenue.

Priestleyian, Franklinian…: More 368–9:

But he that so speaks as ready to give a Reason of what he delivers, and indeed of all things that are already delivered in the Scriptures so plainly as that it appears what the meaning is, (for it is no Prejudice that there be some Depths beyond the present Reach of Men) this Man certainly ought not to be tied up to the Cares of the World by being put to labour for his Bread; but ought to have a liberal, certain, and honourable Allowance.

More goes on to say that “impoverishing” of the clergy and their being forced to “base Terms of living” encourages profaneness, atheism, and infidelity.

5067 30.32 The Hierarchy temporal…these Divines: I.e. the Laudites. What in particular gave rise to this protest of Coleridge’s is not known.

false Dionysius’s celestial [Hierarchy]: Coleridge mentions Dionysius (ƒl 500) called the Areopagite (after Acts 17:34) in C&S (CC) 170. His Celestial Hierarchy and other works attributed to him were attempts to reconcile Neoplatonism and Christianity.

plain simple…admonitions of Paul: E.g. 1 Tim 3, which deals with the qualities of bishops and deacons, and Eph 4:11–12, which describes the work of officers of the church.

Sir M.Hales: Sir Matthew Hale (1609–76), Lord Chief Justice from 1671; on his credulity see CN III 4391, 4394, 4395 and nn.

Harυey: William Harvey (1578–1657), discoverer of the circulation of the blood; as a scientist, in 1634 he presided at physical examinations of women accused of witchcraft, and therefore appears to Coleridge the antithesis of the witch-hunter, Hale.

the serious difficulty occasioned by the miracles & c of the 2^nd & 3^rd Centuries’. I.e. miracles reported in order to prove some doctrine, such as purgatory; cf 5126 and n. Cf CN III 3891, and below, 5228. Coleridge doubted the evidence for miracles after the apostolic age; see CN III 3278n. The more reputable ones of the 2nd and 3rd centuries include miracles of healing reported by Justin Martyr, the less reputable those of St Gregory Thaumaturgus. Cave Apostolici I 273–6 “The Life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus” refers to the so-called great miraculous powers of this saint: his expelling demons from a temple, stopping a plague, drying up a lake, and keeping a river from overflowing.

5068 30.33 Quakerism…(says More): Op cit (5066n) 371–2, Chap 13, “The Author’s Expostulation with the sincere sort of Quakers”:

What Purchase therefore have you got by your Allegorical Mysteries? unless that you have been emboldned thereby to let go the Historical Truth of the Gospel, and have found yourselves much at Ease, that your Belief is not charged with such miraculous things as are written of Christ, partly done already and partly to be done at the End of the World…. Familism is a mere Flam of the Devil, a smooth Tale to seduce the Simple from their Allegiance to Christ.

Coleridge made a marginal note on 372–3:

A new Sect naturally attracts to itself a portion of the madmen of the Time, and sets another portion into Activity as Alarmists and Opportunists. I can not therefore pretend to say what More might not have found in the writings or heard from the mouth of some Lunatic who called himself a Quaker. But I do not recollect in any Work of an acknowleged “Friend” a denial of the Facts narrated by the Evangelists, as having really taken place—in the same sense, as any other Facts of History. If they were Symbols of Spiritual acts and processes (as Fox and Penn intended,) they must have been, or happened; else, how could they be Symbols?

It is too true, however, that the positive Creed of the Quaker’s is and ever has been extremely vague and misty. The Depiction of the Conscience under the name of “The Spirit” seems the main Article of their Faith; and of the rest they form no opinion at all, considering it neither necessary or desirable. I speak of Quakers in general. S.T.C.

But what a lesson of experience does not this Chap. 13 of so great and good a man as H.More afford to us, who knew what the Quakers really are!—Had the followers of G.Fox, or any number of them collectively, acknowleged the mad actions of H.Nicolas? If not [note unfinished].

Muthous: Greek for “Myths”.

Epimythia: “After-myths”, i.e. postscripts pointing out the moral.

5069 30.34 Coleridge was evidently drawing here on Eichhorn Apocal, Eichhorn NT, and Henry More The Grand Mystery of Godliness: Theological Works (1708) 119–45; this last discussed Joseph Mede’s interpretation of the book of Revelation. On Eichhorn Apocal see 5329 and n below.

In a note on Eichhorn NT (A) II 387 Coleridge disagreed with the assertion that Revelation contains all the characteristics of style found in the fourth gospel: “Surely not. The Resemblances consist in words and phrases borrowed from S^t John, which of course the dullest Personator would take care to do. But the whole Soul and Spirit are diverse. I think I could almost give a psychological Demonstration of it’s not being John the Evangelist’s work”.

There is a similar note on Eichhorn NT (B) II 377: CM II.

the Authenticity of the 4^th Gospel: Coleridge argued this in a note, Eichhorn NT (A) II 230: CM II.

possible exception of the latter half of the last Chapter:

I.e. John 21:15–25; Eichhorn NT II 213–23 argued for the authenticity of this muchdebated passage. Coleridge, in a note referring to ibid (B) II 213–23, argued that it was by a later hand:

Notwithstanding all Eichhorn’s ingenuity, it appears to me abundantly the more probable and satisfactory hypothesis, that the Post-script or Appendix was added by the successor in the church after John’s Death— and for a good and sufficient cause, viz. to remove an objection grounded in a saying of our Lord’s that had been inaccurately reported. I cannot doubt, that the last chapter, or at least the latter half of it, was written after the death of both Apostles—Peter and John.

& not only like Matthew, according to him: All the gospels contain in their titles “according to”. Coleridge means that the gospel of John was written by John, not merely according to him, as the gospel of Matthew is merely according to Matthew. Coleridge held that the extant version of Matthew is a reworking of an earlier Hebrew gospel; cf CM II Eichhorn NT (A) I 398, 401, 430, 457, 511–2, and especially a flyleaf note referring to p. 10, ibid; cf also CN III 3879.

The τo αχρονον: “The [concept of] the timeless”; see 5241 and CM I Böhme Works 165n2.

f23^v the prophetic tone respecting known History: It was Coleridge’s view that Rev 1 to 11 depicts the wars and insurrections culminating in the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; see CM Eichhorn Apocal passim.

Sea-monster which Eichhorn affirms to be Idolatry…and the lamb-like Beast…: Eichhorn Apocal II 108–26 on Rev 13:1–11.

pseudo-philosophical Religion of Egypt, Samothrace…Mysteries generally: See 4625, 4794, 4839, 4898–4901 and nn.

Simon Magus: The story of Simon the “sorcerer” (Acts 8:5–25) is elaborated in Eichhorn NT II 5.

Apollonius: Apollonius of Tyana is described by Henry More in The Grand Mystery of Godliness: Theological Works 71–119 as “a famous corival” of Christ in the early Christian era, because his prophecies and miracles were strikingly parallel. See 5075 f29^v and n below.

from this Chapt. 12: I.e. from Rev 12 to 22.

(Harry! thy wish was father to thi s Thought); II Henry IV IV V 93 var.

horrid calamities…befall the Roman Empire: It was Coleridge’s view that the Babylon…lation represented Imperial Rome; CM Eichhorn Apocal II 35. Rev 14 to 22 describe the dooms of Babylon: the seven last plagues, the victory of Christ, the binding of Satan, the millennium, the lake of fire, and the renewal of the earth after the descent of the holy city.

f24 renew the idolatrous Empire: Rev 17, which describes the “whore of Babylon” given power for a short time, after the seven plagues, to make war on the “lamb”.

Christ himself descends’. Rev 19.

long interval of pure Christianity: The millennium of Rev 20:1–4.

a fifth Monarchy: A reference to the vision of Dan 2 and its interpretation of the head of gold, arms and breast of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and toes of iron mingled with clay as representing kingdoms. The fifth, since the toes represent divisions of the fourth, is the rock that smashes the image; for Coleridge identified these monarchies in 5374 f9, and CM John Davison Discourses on Prophecy 519–23.

unconverted Nations…& the Last Judgement: A summary of events in Rev 20:7–15.

spiritualizing the Milennium into conversion: A common interpretation in Coleridge’s day, as suggested in e.g. G.S.Faber A Dissertation on the Prophecies (3 vols 1814–18) II 481: “Some persons, fond of what they call spiritualizing Scripture, have asserted, that there never will be any literal restoration of the Jews, and that the only restoration which they will experience is an admission into the Christian Church”. Also 478–85 and Henry More Theological Works 144, 360.

platonizing Cabala: See Lect 10 P Lects (CC) ff448–4 50.

purgation of the imperfect…Labourers in the Gospel: Rev 20:4.

Let Eichhorn say what he will, of the ταχυ, εν ταχει: Eichhorn Apocal I 5 equated the

(AV) “shortly” of Rev I: I with the ταχύ (AV) “quickly” of Rev 22:7, interpreting both as “certainly”.

f24^v known persuasion…in the Apostolic Age: For NT evidence see e.g. 1 Thess 4:16– 18; Acts 1:11; 2 Tim 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13.

old prophets…paraphrases by Jews: Eichhorn NT II 365–6 suggested that the writer used the form of a vision and materials from the OT prophets in order to attract an audience made up largely at first of readers educated in Judaism. The use of OT materials in Revelation was well attested long before Coleridge’s day.

many Apocalypses were written: Eichhorn NT II 494–5n referred to supposititious apocalypses by Peter, Paul, Athanasius of Rome, and Athanasius of Alexandria, in Arabic and Syriac versions still extant. He did not attribute any to the Zelotae.

Zelotæ: Josephus Wars of the Jews IV iii foll describes this fanatical party and how its resistance to the Romans led to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Σημειov: “sign”, traditionally a masking symbol for “Messiah”. Eichhorn NT III 96 interpreted the σημεĩoν of I Cor 1:22 as “the person indicated”, the worldly Messiah whom the Jews expected.

f25 Messiah of the Cabbala: Basnage History of the Jews 184–90 described the messiah of the Jewish Cabalists as the mystic ruler of the spirits and souls of the universe by virtue of his having suffered and died and been raised to such a position, and as the sum of the seven Sephiroth—the Splendors, or Spirits. He would reign in the seventh millennium of the world, its Sabbath, according to the Cabalistic interpretations of all things in terms of seven.

Messiah of the Zelotæ: I.e. the Messiah described in Maccabees (e.g. I 2:57 and 14:41) and in the Sibylline Oracles Bks 3–5 as a “Holy Ruler” who would militarily drive out Israel’s foes and maintain the “everlasting line of David” until a “faithful prophet” should arise.

attribute the work to Cerinthus…Eichhorn has compleatly exploded: Eichhorn NT II 386: (tr) “Cerinthus held Christ to be a mere man, and could he be the author of a book which sets Christ forth throughout as God?”

Domitian’s Reign: 81–96 A.D. This was the Patristic view, as described in Eichhorn NT II 121; Eichhorn himself (II 388) placed it in the reign of Vespasian, 69–79 A.D.

f25^v Justin Martyr…first known Acknowleger of the Work: Eichhorn NT II 397: (tr) “Thus Justin Martyr remains the first to speak with great esteem of the Apocalypse as a work of John, an apostle of Christ [in the Dialogue with Trypho]”.

pretended Date…part of the Poem: Rev 1:9. Cf f23^v above and cf also LS (CC) 146–7.

took the Authors name from the name personated: Rev 1:9; 21:2.

under Adrian: The Roman Emperor Hadrian, 117–38 A.D.

Ebionite: A Christian sect among the Jews in the first and second centuries, the followers of Peter rather than Paul. Eichhorn NT I 14–77.

Error that I share with so many good & wise men: The book of Revelation has been disputed in the canon in all ages of Christian history.

f26 Love of the Gospel of John…Dreams of Worldly Events & Wonders: Coleridge made similar statements in notes on Eichhorn NT (A) II 469 and (B) II 377: CM II.

Luther to reject it…to the last: See 4755 and n.

5070 30.35 inter Theologos: “among Theologians”.

a first beginning: See CN III 4418 f11^v and n.

historical conditio sine quâ non: On the quasi-external revelation as the imperative pre-condition and preparation for an inner revelation, see below 5421 and n.

5071 30.36 concinentium: For Coleridge’s invented

Greek word which he translates into Latin meaning “people singing together”, and for his view of the authorship of Homer, see 4832 f61 and n, and CM II under “Homeric Hymns”; see also CM II Eichhorn AT II 250.

f27 Logos of the Evangelist…Logos of Philo: Eichhorn NT II 111 pointed out that Philo, like John, saw the Logos as a “son of God”. Coleridge’s annotations on Copy A and Copy B at this point appear in CM II. See on Philo on the Logos, TT (1836) 23 June 1834. Coleridge was convinced from about 1816 onwards that Philo’s views of the Logos coincided with John’s, thus proving that the Arian/Socinian/Unitarian interpretations of John I were incorrect; see below 5256 and n, also SM:LS (CC) 95, C&S (CC) 84 and CL IV 632, 803, 850.

Arius and Athanasius differed concerning Christ: See CN III 3968 and

5413 and n; Arius denied the divinity and consubstantiality of Christ which Athanasius resolutely upheld.

περι τõυ Xρίστου: “concerning Christ”, as Coleridge translates it.

5072 30.37 doctrine of the Spirit inculcated by Seneca: Tennemann V 155 briefly summarised Seneca on the Spirit, referring to Epistolae morales 65, 71, 122, and others, quoting 95, and at V 162 fn 45 he quoted the famous passage from Epist 41 i see also (5089 ): “God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius, a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit so we are treated by it. Indeed no man can be good without the help of God. Can one rise superior to fortune unless God helps him? He it is that gives noble and upright counsel”.

Seneca ad Lucilium epistulae morales tr Richard M.Gummere (3 vols LCL 1917–25). (With Seneca’s view that “a good action arises only from a good will” [Epist 95] cf CN I 1705–1716).

that of S^t Pauls in Ephes: Eph 5:1–21 esp v. 9? 3:16? Or is Coleridge referring to the general tenor of this Epistle?

Legend…of the apocryphal Correspondences: Eichhorn NT III 540–44 referred to the legend of the acquaintanceship between Seneca and Paul as fostered by Tertullian’s reference (De anima c 20) to Seneca as “often one of us”, to Paul’s acquaintance (Acts 18:12) with Proconsul Gallio (Seneca’s brother), and to a supposed general similarity between Paul’s ethic and Seneca’s. Paul’s correspondence with Seneca is included in Hone’s Apocryphal New Testament: see 5351 and n.

f28 Cicero’s clear statements…Virtue…Prudence: See 4939 and n. Tennemann (V 129–34) pointed out that Cicero made virtue and selfinterest two basic aspects of human nature while not necessarily separating the two. Cicero in De qfficiis 15 made prudence one of the four elements that comprise honestum.

f28^v Distinction in Seneca…: Tennemann V 148–51, summarized Seneca Epistolae morales 94 and 95, where he distinguished between “decreta” and “praecepta”, i.e. between “basic principles” and “specific rules”.

fine Remark of Epict. (Enchiridion, c. 51): Tennemann V 180 summarized (without quoting) Epictetus Enchiridion c 51:

Tr: According to him, the most important and necessary point of philosophy is the application of the precepts—e.g. one should not lie; the second is the proof of the precepts—e.g. why one should not lie. The third, the rules of thought by which those proofs obtain their convincing form, or the investigation of what a proof is, what a consequence is, what is denial, truth, and falsehood. The third is necessary because of the second, the second because of the first. One could remain with the first, as the main goal of philosophy. But usually we reverse the order, remaining with the third and abandoning the first, and consequently we lie, but always with the proofs at hand, that we should not lie.

5073 30.39 Coleridge’s annotated copy of Hacket A Century of Sermons (1675), in the BM, includes fifteen sermons on the Incarnation, twenty-one on the “Tentation”, and seven on the Transfiguration of Christ. After twenty-three pages on the Incarnation Coleridge protests in a MS note against Hacket’s “unwholesome vanities” and “all this superstitious trash about Angels”. In addition to twelve marginal notes on the Incarnation sermons he made one marginal note on the fourteenth Temptation sermon, and one on the fourth sermon on the Transfiguration (449), and a few notes on the Resurrection sermons. At 557 there is a general comment similar to this entry:

“Let any competent judge read Hackett’s Life of Archbishop Williams, and then these Sermons—and so measure the stultifying, nugifying effect of the Study of the Fathers, and the prepossession in favor of Patristic Authorities, on the minds of our Church Dignitaries in general, in the reign of Charles I.”

The injurious influences, in Coleridge’s view, led to an excessive veneration of the Virgin Mary and undue credulity as to the historicity of the Christopaedia; see below 5075 and n, also CN III 3779 and n.

5074 30.38 M^r Mence: The Rev Samuel Mence (1781–1860) was Master of Cholmeley’s Free Grammar School at Highgate and preacher in the school chapel.

my explanation of the Temptation of our Lord: Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1-13; Luke 4:1–3. “With regard to the Temptation, it seems much more probable to me that it was a Parable related by our Lord on the occasion of the Dispute between the sons of Zebedee.” Coleridge’s marginal note on Eichhorn NT (A) I 452. See also a marginal note on John Hacket A Century of Sermons 449 in CM II.

the Transfiguration: In Matt 17:1–13, Mark 9:1–13, Luke 9:28–36, Moses and Elijah appear beside Jesus. Coleridge’s difficulty was with the literal acceptance of the Transfiguration for which he wished to substitute a more imaginative interpretation, as above for the Temptation and for the virgin birth in 5075.

Inspiration Revelation:: Πνευμα: Λογος: Inspiration is to Revelation as Spirit is to Word; for Coleridge’s use of these signs see e.g., 5197, 4649. For his symbols see App A.

5075 30.40 The entry presents some of Coleridge’s objections to the acceptance of the birth stories in Matt 1–2 and Luke 1–2; see e.g. 5240 and n.

only Article of the Universal Church endangered: I.e. “born of the Virgin Mary”.

the higher Critique: Eichhorn AT I vi coined the term as meaning the examination of the authenticity and historicity of the biblical documents, as distinguished from a study of the text per se (the lower criticism); see 5334n.

f29^v The Apocalypse…: See 5069.

I must procure Hermas, the Shepherd: Coleridge obtained the work in Hone’s The Apocryphal New Testament (1821) see 5351 and n; also TT 3 Jan 1834.

so early universality of the Belief…: I.e. in the first and second centuries, as seen in creed-like passages in Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen.

silence…of the N.T.writers: The birth story is mentioned nowhere in the NT except in Matt and Luke; even Luke 2:27, 33, 41, 43, and 48 have often been read as implying a human paternity of Jesus.

M.versus L.: Matt and Luke are at variance with each other in the genealogy of Jesus as well as in some of the details of the birth story.

Charlemagne…the very early date: Coleridge here began to think of parallels in legends and romances to the NT stories of the Conception & Birth of our Lord, beginning with Charlemagne, whose secretary, Turpin, archbishop of Rheims, is often mentioned by Ariosto in Orlando Furioso as a source of information, although neither the Life attributed to Turpin nor Orlando Furioso refers to stories about Charlemagne’s birth. Coleridge goes on to Merlin in Geoffrey of Monmouth (1100–1154) Historia regum Britanniae VI 18; Alexander the Great and Plutarch’s suggestion in his “Life of Alexander” that Jupiter was Alexander’s father; Plato see (5240 f29 and n), whose nephew Speusippus recorded his miraculous conception, as reported by Diogenes Laertius (III 2) claiming that Plato was the son of Apollo; Pythagoras, another son of Apollo, rather than Plotinus, in Porphyry’s Life of Pythagoras; Apollonius of Tyana in Philostratus’ Life (see above 5069 f23^v and n); and lastly the story of the birth of Hercules (Heracles) to Alcmena by Jupiter, who took the place of her husband Amphitryon. The last was indeed of very early date, appearing first in the Shield of Heracles, a poem in the Hesiodic corpus (c 580–70 B.C.); see above 4895 and n.

the Verse in Isaiah: Isa 7:14.

Marks of the Messiah: Eichhorn NT I 484 conjectured that a book giving the characteristics of the Messiah drawn from the ancient prophets must have existed prior to the gospel according to Matthew. Cf a letter to William Hart Coleridge of 16 Jan 1818 discussing a plan to treat the subject. CL IV 811.

f30 War-Ode in Joshua converted into history: Eichhorn AT I 404–5 and n suggested that Joshua 10:12–14, containing the famous command for the sun to stand still, was a later poetic interpolation from the Book of Jasher and is the beginning of Joshua’s victory song, sung by Israel after the battle; see 4897.

words that dropt from Mary herself…: Coleridge wrote in a marginal note dated Jan 1826 on Schleiermacher’s Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke (1825) tr C.Thirlwall 35–7 that he had amused himself “with imaginings of this sort” thirty years earlier.

John with whom she resided: At Ephesus, according to tradition.

if she had any as the Gospel seems to imply: Luke 2:7 and 8:19.

absentibus forsitan σημειoις παρθενικοις τoις νομιμοις: “at the absence, perhaps, of the normal signs of virginity”.

by J.: Joseph.

f30^v honest Gossip Papias: Eusebius Ecclesiastical History Bk III Chap 39 describes Papias’ diligent and often erroneous collection of memoirs and information concerning the Apostles. No mention is made of his having found anything about Mary’s family.

last & greatest Evangelist: I.e. John, Coleridge’s favourite; cf 5069n.

The Son of the living God: found only in John 6:39; the spiritual explication is doubtless a reference to John 1:1–14.

Tertullian’s Idiotæ: See CN III 3675 and 5060 and nn.

5076 30.41 The entry represents a continuation of Coleridge’s speculations, begun much earlier, regarding the nature of evil and the problem of its expulsion from the universe if it exists as a necessary involute of good; see CN III 4418 and above, 4554, 4998 and nn.

in potentiâ…in Actu: “in potential”, “in actuality”; cf 5143.

God is a consuming Fire: Heb 12:29.

f31 Eτερóτης: Otherness; see 5078 f43^v.

f31^v Lie & the Father of Lies from the beginning: John 8:44 var. the dark Fire: Cf Milton Paradise Lost II 40, “black fire”.

f32 Prince of the Air: Eph 2:2.

Pioneer: In the military sense, sapper.

the Mosaic Darkness: See CN III 4418. The Chaos of Gen 1:2, out of which God separated light from darkness as the first and basic reciprocities forming the ordering in Creation.

Forma Formarum: “Form of Forms”.

pledge that no evil thing shall be: Nah 1:9. Cf Ps 37:10; Eph 2:6, 7; Rev 21:1.

5077 30.42 Although in theme a continuation of 5076 this entry shows a distinct change of ink and pen.

quod effari haud licitum est: “what it is not lawful to say aloud”.

f32^v Jonathan Edwards’ notorious Tract…: The Eternity of Hell Torments (1788).

Leibnitzian…Theodicee: See CN II 1993n.

Edwards’ Book on Necessity: Coleridge’s copy of Jonathan Edwards A Careful and strict Inquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that Freedom of the Will, which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency 5th ed 1790 is in VCL. In AR 153–4 Coleridge condemned Edwards’s concept of the will as “absolutely passive”. See also C&S (CC) 17.

my last proposition: I.e. the last sentence off 5076.

set forth by Moses…: Gen 1:2–28, which gives the account of the Creation up to God’s placing man in dominion over the lesser creation. Note Coleridge’s italicizing of the second Verse; he considered Gen 1:1 to be the account of the antecedent step of rendering the Chaos into the Prothetic order from which Light and Darkness sprang. See CN III 4418 ff11^v–12.

f33 A and Ωμεγα: “Alpha and Omega,” the beginning and the ending; Rev 1:8, I:II, 21:6, 22.13.

Dark Fire: See 5076 n above.

of the Generations of God: Gen 2:4.

περιχωρησις: “intercirculation/interpenetration”. See CN III 4359 and n.

Eternity calleth…for ever and ever: Rev 19:1–6.

5078 30.43 This so controverted Article: I.e. Article II of the Articles of Religion, “Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man”.

God All in All: 1 Cor 15:28.

be longer comprehensive: Coleridge has apparently omitted the word no: “be no longer comprehensive”.

Idea Idearum: “Idea of Ideas”, as in 4524, 4901 and nn.

Eterotès: “otherness”; as in 5076 above in Greek.

Nous: “Mind”.

Sabaoth: “Lord of hosts”; Isa 5:9; 10:22; Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4.

f34 epoch of Probation: From the original Chaos to the final destruction of evil? See 4554 and n, and Rev 22:11–13.

“WHO is from the bosom of the Father”; Coleridge is varying the Greek of John 1:18; for his use of to mean “the I AM" from Ex 3:13 in the Septuagint as the term for God see 4523, 4671, 4901, 5256 and nn.

óων εν τοις κολποις του πατρος: “who is in the bosoms of the Father”. John I: 18 has for Coleridge appears to be sharpening the distinction between “into”and “in” blurred in NT Greek usage.

das Böse: “the Evil”.

το πονηρον: “that which is evil”; Luke 6:45.

ο πονηρος: “the evil one”; Matt 13:19; John 17:15.

hypostasised Evil: see 4554 and n.

ĸαĸoδαιμoνες: “evil spirits”; see f36 below. Not in NT.

Intersilentium: Not in OED; “silence between”; Coleridge was referring to the period between the date of the last book of the OT to be written (Daniel?), and the time of Christ.

f34^v become the popular faith…: For Coleridge’s view on how a belief in devils passed over into the popular language of the day, see 4690 and n. Basnage History of the Jews (4709) 310–4 “Of Demons” describes the rise of the belief in demons in Judaism after the Captivity; the point is also made in Hugh Farmer An Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testament (1775) 313–16.

the doctrine of Resurrection to retributive Justice’. Coleridge had much material available on this subject e.g. Eichhorn, Basnage, Pearson, and Herder; see below 5334, 5336.

Our Lord repeats the words: John 5:28–9; see CN V 35.12 and n.

f35 Devil and Devils are spoken of anthropomorphously: E.g. Matt 9:32–5; Mark 7:25–30; Luke 8:26–36; 9:37–40.

exception…in one of Paul’s Epistles: Probably 2 Cor 11:14.

Rising and Setting of the Sun: E.g. Josh 10:12; 2 Ki 20:9; Job 9:7; Isa 60:20; Matt 5:45; Eph 4:26.

f35^v πνευμα and λογος: “spirit” and “word”; see 4870 and n.

f36 Church could discover no term…not still more imperfecf. Jeremy Taylor Polemical Discourses (1674) 243, “Of the Real Presence”:

…Because when the Church for the understanding of this secret of the holy Trinity hath taken words from Metaphysical learning, as person, hypostasis, consubstantiality, and such like, the words of themselves were apt to change their signification, and to put on the sense of the present School. But the Church was forc’d to use such words as she had, the highest, the nearest, the most separate and mysterious.

See also Richard Field Of the Church (CN III 4191) 142.

Divines as equally Orthodox and learned have felt…: Pearson An Exposition of the Creed 307–9 and Jeremy Taylor Polemical Discourses 243 admit that many passages of Scripture regarding the Holy Ghost do not seem to refer to a person and are thus equivocal; they both argue that the passages must be seen as philosophically implying personality.

passage in the Acts: Act 19:1–7 on John the Baptist’s disciples who had not heard of the Holy Ghost.

may be otherwise interpreted: I.e. than as proving the existence of the third Person of the Trinity.

Baptismal Institution in Matthew. Matt 28:19.

doubt among the Learned…age of this Text: Eichhorn NT I 105 wrote that the text was not known to Justin Martyr, who used a different baptismal formula.

f36^v distinction between the begetting…Proceeding: I.e. following the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381; see 4907n.

Sancta Sophia: “Holy Wisdom”; the Greek Patristic term for the Holy Ghost, that for Christ being the Logos. Cf Eichhorn NT II 170 foll; see also 4870, 5172 and nn.

“thrice holy Wisdom”.

f377 frequent sequence of a substantive in the genitive case: As the “spirit of God” which appears fifteen times in NT.

supposed in several passages of the New Testament: E.g. I Cor 10:20; Jas 2:19; Jude 6; Rev 20:10–all of which speak of devils as personal beings.

5079 30.44 Pneuma: Tennemann VI 218 says that we cannot find in Plotinus and Porphyry any certain trace of the belief so much in evidence among the later neoplatonists of a spirit-body accompanying every soul although Porphyry mentions a certain “πνευμα, oder LuftKörper” to which the souls of the demons are tied; in VI 224 he wrote:

Tr: The evil demons alter their forms and figures. The spirit (pneuma) is something corporeal, subject to pain and dissoluble; in so far as it is bound together by the soul, it can exist for a long time, without being immortal. It is reasonable to assume that there is continuous excretion from this body, and that it is nourished.

The passage was from Porphyry “On Abstinence from Animal Food”, a work which appeared in Thomas Taylor’s English translation of Porphyry Select Works (1823) 76–7.

“in potentiality”.

μεσον τι: “something in between”, as Coleridge has it.

in re: “as a thing”.

Cartesian Platonists (H.More): Cf Coleridge’s association of Descartes and Henry More on this subject in Lect 13 P Lects (CC) ff634–6. Coleridge was with Webster and against More on the materiality of spirits.

Stahlians: Followers of G.E.Stahl (1660–1734); on Stahl’s “error in deriving the phenomena of life from the unconscious action of the rational soul” see TL 34; Stahl was opposed by the celebrated anatomist Friedrich Hoffmann, who stated at length his differences with Stahl. See also 5341 and n.

Plattner: I.e. Ernst Platner (1744–1818), another physiologist with an interest in psychological and aesthetic links with his subject, whose Anthropologie für Aerzte und Weltweise (1772) Coleridge admired. CL IV 613. See also 5094n.

Bonnet: Charles Bonnet (1720–93), Swiss naturalist and philosopher whose Palingénésie philosophique (1769–70) argued that animal life is continued and perfected in a future existence.

Body actual real Body: Cf 5143, CN V 26.76 and nn. For Coleridge’s symbols see App A.

Electric Fluid: A popular concept of the time, attacked by Coleridge, e.g. in a note on Carl A.F.Kluge Versuch einer Darstellung des animalischen Magnetismus als Heilmittel (Berlin 1815) §§ 7, 8; see 4908n. Here he is equating Porphyry’s half-corporeal spiritbodies with the electric fluid of contemporary scientists, about as real, he suggests, as Porphyry’s caterpillar cast-off skins, and the inert residue of Daemon-Souls.

5080 30.45 Playing with “love of”—and various Greek roots, Coleridge applies systematically words familiar (2 and 4) or invented, (1, 3, and 5), to various Pursuits. See also other similar terms in 5094 f104^v.

1. Philæsthesy: “love of the aesthetic”, or of sense perception.

2. Philology: “love of logic”, using λóγος as the Understanding (i.e. not philology in the modern sense, or the theological sense) but the Aristotelean. Cf Logic (CC) 33–5 and e.g. 5078 above where logos and nous are discussed in theological terms; see also 5132 below.

3. Philonöy: “love of the mind” or the nous, reason. OED attributes to Coleridge (1804) Philonoists, in a letter to R.Sharp: “Philologists, Philonoists, Phisiophilists, keen hunters after knowledge and Science”. CL II 1032. The application is to Zeno the Stoic, not the pre-Socratic philosopher. Again cf Logic (CC) 32–5 and 5078.

4. PHILOSOPHY—Plato: “love of wisdom”, true philosophy. Cf Op Max (MS) II ff193^v–194: “[Philosophy] supposes the Will & therefore the whole man collectively while [Philology] excludes the Will & refers only to a part of our nature namely the human intelligence; that only which unites the speculative and the practical subordinating the former to the latter can be rightfully called a Philosophy”.

5. Philokrisy. “love of criticism”, as in the Critical Philosophy of Kant; Coleridge naturally here used Weights & Measures, a kind of metaphor from trade and practical life, for which Kant had a predilection. Or was Coleridge thinking of Wis 11.20; see below 5406 f93 and n.

5081 30.46 The entry continues from 5079 30.44. Coleridge was evidently still drawing on Tennemann VI 203–47, the chapter on “Porphyry”. Possibly he also had at hand Iamblichus De mysteriis, long known to him in Ficino’s Latin translation ([Geneva] 1607), which included, with other works, extracts from Porphyry’s De abstinentia (see CN III 3935n).

f38 Plotinus…Genius, and Capaciousness: Among many enthusiastic references, see Lect 7 P Lects (CC) ff330–336. Coleridge repeatedly in his annotations defended Plotinus against Tennemann. Tennemann paid tribute to Plotinus’ genius, imagination, and powers of reasoning and concentration, but in Coleridge’s view failed to comprehend adequately the intuition of transcendent reality—by both Plato and Plotinus. See CN II 2447 and n.

setting up a Religion against Christianity: I.e. Neoplatonism; see Lect 7 P Lects (CC) ff321–324 and n 26, where Coleridge posed Neoplatonism as a “more dangerous rival of Christianity” than the Stoic beliefs; Tennemann VI 10–11 described Neoplatonism as building a systematic philosophy on the foundations of paganism in order to save the old beliefs from encroaching Christianity. On Porphyry’s attacks on Christianity see below.

Distinctities in the Unity…purgation as by Fire: On Distinctities in the Unity see esp Ennead V 3 and VI 7. Whether Coleridge was drawing on Plotinus directly here, (cf 4910 f73 and n) or Tennemann (VI 157 foll) and Iamblichus and Porphyry is not clear—quite possibly on all. Thomas Taylor had recently translated Iamblichus On the Mysteries (1821). According to Neoplatonic thought, the immutable, unknowable, transcendent One, was the source and being of all things. Intellect (Nous), Soul, individuality, matter, i.e. individualized existence, flowed out from this (apostasis), dwelt in temporal, mutable form and from the lowest level (metastasis), returned (anastasis) to the One, and had ultimate rest (stasis) again in the One, the process being completed by a kind of purification by the “heavenly fire”. On these terms see CN III 4449 ff28–29^v; απóστασις and στάσις appear occasionally in Plotinus.

explanation of Evil…: In Ennead I 8 summarized in Tennemann VI 141–53. The Neoplatonic notion of evil was that it was a negation of existence, formlessness, matter, and that it increased with distance from the One.

f38^v evil Dæmons…no Revelation was given: I.e. in the Christian system; see 5078 f34^v.

Porphyry’s…own Theosophy: Tennemann (VI 222–47) described this theosophy as an attempt to save paganism from Christianity, through “divine authority”, “revelations”, “oracles”, and “transmission of sacred books”, though he pointed out (VI 242–3) that Porphyry’s scepticism in the Letter to Anebo seemed inconsistent with this attempt.

Porphyry’s attack on the Christian belief: Porphyry’s work Against the Christians survived only in the fragments quoted mainly by Christians attacking it. Tennemann VI 227 refers to it but does not quote from it. The principal collection of these fragments Coleridge could have seen in Nathaniel Lardner A Large Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies to the Truth of the Christian Religion: Works (11 vols 1788) VIII.

Dissonances in the (supposed) Sacred Books…Hermes, Zoroaster, Pythagoras: Not mentioned specifically by Tennemann as such. Coleridge may have in mind Porphyry’s On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles quoted and answered by Eusebius Pamphilii in Evangelica praeparatio IV 7–23, V 1–16, and VI 1–6. Porphyry held that the Egyptian, Greek, and Chaldean oracles were symbols of underlying realities, with outward differences but an inner harmony. Similar passages appear in De abstinentia, translated by Thomas Taylor and included in his Select Works of Porphyry (1823).

In the latter…detection of contradictions…famous men of past ages: I.e. in Porphyry’s attacks on Christianity Tennemann (VI 227–8) wrote:

Tr: How vastly different he appears in his writings against the Christians, even judged by the few fragments of them remaining in some of the Church Fathers. He did not consider the Old and New Testaments given of God but written by men, for contradictions appear in them which could not have come from the source of all truth and because the teachers of Christianity fought among themselves and rebuked each other; he set great store by the validity of the chain of reasoning in the thought of others, and yet he did not himself follow this maxim; he would not allow prophecy any worth but held it to be tales of real events, notwithstanding the fact that he asserted that demons, good as well as evil, worked on the minds of men and prophesied future things.

ex. gr. Daniel by a Poet of the age of Antiochus, Epiphanes: For Coleridge’s view of the authorship and date of Daniel see 5287 and n. Porphyry’s views on Daniel as given by Jerome—Opera Omnia (11 vols Frankfurt 1684) V 481–2 “In librum commentariorum Danielis”—appear in Lardner Works (op cit above) VIII 184–5. But Eichhorn also, AT III 348, refers to Porphyry as dating Daniel in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Porphyry’s acute and enlightened Remarks on Magic: Cf Tennemann VI 228:

Tr: Really, in this entire teaching Porphyry is inconsistent. At one time he describes the absurdities on which magic rests so illuminatingly, so forcefully, that one has to admire the brilliant intelligence of the man and can expect nothing else but that he will treat the entire subject as a mere invention of superstition and sophistry of the mind.

But cf a few pages later Tennemann VI 234 (tr):

Proof that the cause of mantic soothsaying lies in a certain derangement of the understanding is offered by their madness and aberration into sickness, by their fasts and fantasies arising from the flow of certain juices in their bodies. The intermediary condition, where they are not wholly in their right mind nor yet entirely beside themselves, produced the fancies artificially by magic.

See also Tennemann VI 236.

f39 letter to the Egyptian Priest, Anebo: The letter is extant mainly in quotations in Iamblichus De mysteriis, written in reply to it. Thomas Taylor prefixed Thomas Gale’s reconstruction of it to his English translation of Iamblichus On the Mysteries (1821) 1– 16. Tennemann (VI 229–42) quoted and paraphrased the whole letter.

Berkeley is not justified: The reference is to Alciphron (see below 5096) in Dialogue 6 § 25:

But of all the great Men who wrote against Revealed Religion, the greatest without question was that truly great Man Porphyry…He most learnedly confuted the Scriptures, shew’d the Absurdity of the Mosaic Accounts, undermined and exposed the Prophecies, and ridiculed allegorical Interpretations…

Crito: Porphyry, I grant, was a thorough Infidel, though he appears by no means to have been incredulous. It seems he had a great Opinion of Wizards and Necromancers, and believed the Mysteries, Miracles, and Prophecies of Theurgists and Ægyptian Priests. He was far from being an Enemy to obscure Jargon, and pretended to extraordinary Extasies. In a word, this great Man appears to have been as unintelligible as a Schoolman, as superstitious as a Monk, and as fanatical as any Quietist or Quaker: and, to complete his character as a Minute Philosopher, he was under strong Temptations to lay violent Hands on himself. We may frame a Notion of this Patriarch of Infidelity, by his judicious Way of thinking upon other Points as well as the Christian Religion. So sagacious was he as to find out, that the Souls of Insects, when separated from their Bodies, become rational: that Dæmons of a thousand Shapes assist in making Philtrums and Charms, whose spiritual Bodies are nourished and fattened by the Streams of Libations and Sacrifices: That the Ghosts of those, who died violent Deaths, use to haunt and appear about their Sepulchres. This same egregious Philosopher Adviseth a wise Man not to eat Flesh, lest the impure Soul of the Brute that was put to violent Death should enter, along with the Flesh, into those who eat it. He adds, as a Matter of Fact confirmed by many Experiments, that those who would insinuate into themselves the Souls of such Animals, as have the Gift of foretelling Things to come, need only eat a principal part, the Heart, for instance, of a Stag or a Mole, and so received the Soul of the Animal, which will prophecy in them like a God…. No Wonder if Men whose Minds were preoccupied by Faith and Tenets of such a peculiar Kind, should be averse from the Reception of the Gospel. Upon the whole, we desire to be excused if we do not pay the same Deference to the Judgment of Men, that appear to us whimsical, superstitious, weak, and visionary, which those impartial Gentlemen do, who admire their Talents, and are proud to tread in their Footsteps.

Alciphron (2nd ed 1732) II 95–7

Warburton: See CN II 2729n, 2440 and n, III 3802n, 3805–3808 and nn, 3813n, 4322n.

Horseley [Horsley]: See CN I 53n; II 2444–2448 and nn.

Grotius: See CN III 3911 f61 and n.

Huet: Pierre Daniel (1630–1721), French Jesuit Bishop, and polymath, the author of Demonstratio evangelica (6th ed Frankfurt 1772).

Animal Magnetism: See 4908 and n.

Plotinus:Porphyry & c::Schelling:Mesmerism: Coleridge’s use of this formula elsewhere suggests the interpretation here—Plotinus is to Porphyry as Schelling is to Mesmerism, i.e. these philosophers represent a drifting of philosophy towards magic, fantasy, and credulity, a similar pattern being visible from the Natur-philosophie to the extinction of all Philosophy?

f39^v Prince Hohenlohe: Alexander Leopold France Emmerich, Prince Hohenlohe (1794–1849), German faith-healer, was about this time the subject of an article in Ed Rev XXXIX (Oct 1823) 54–66.

In the same letter…: I.e. to Anebo referred to above, Tennemann (VI 240) gives the passage in German with but one Greek word: “I am still doubtful whether man’s own genius [Genius] is not one of his faculties, namely his intellect and therefore he is happy (ευδαιμων) who has a wise intellect” [i.e. who has a good daemon or genius].

Porphyry’s own words [quoted by Tennemann VI 233n still from the letter to Anebo]: I.e. (referring to soothsaying): “that a mixed form of subsistence is produced partly from our soul and partly from divine inspiration from without”.

5082 30.47 Burnet’s Reform. Vol. II. Preface, p. 10: Coleridge annotated the Dublin folio edition (2 vols 1730–31) one of his notes being dated 28 Dec 1823; see CM I under Burnet for his comments on Pts I and II. There was a third supplementary volume in 1733. In this Preface Burnet discussed how “in the times of Popery the People were kept in such profound Ignorance that they, knowing nothing of Religion beyond the outward Forms and Pageantry…were inclined to hear Preachers of any sort…! But though there were then very Learned and Zealous Divines…yet still the greater part of the Clergy was very Ignorant…. So that the greatest part of the Clergy, were such as had been formerly Monks or Friers, very ignorant for most part, and generally addicted to their former Superstition, though otherwise Men that would comply with any thing rather than forfeit their Livings”. II x-xi.

f40 τα κυριακα: (Neuter plural adjective from κύριος, Lord) “the things of the Lord”, from which are derived “kirk”, and “church”.

the Ecclesia; the εκκαλουμενοι: “those who have been called out”; see 5039 and n.

Enclesia: Not in OED. The two terms, Ecclesia and Enclesia, used together also in 5263 and 5398, are distinguished in a letter of c 16 May 1825 as “the church as an institution of Christ and as a Constituent Estate of the State Ecclesia Enclesia” CL V 455. The words provided a central distinction in C&S, the working out of which can be seen in marginal notes on Skelton (see 5214 and n) and Hooker, on which see C&S (CC) 45 and n I, 198–9.

5083 30.48 Again an entry taking off from Burnet (in a passage dealing with controversy over Henry VIII’s divorce) History of the Reformation (see 5082 and n) II Pt II Bk ii 63–85, especially 78:

…But as there are some Moral Precepts, which have that natural evidence in them, that all Men must discern it, so there are others, that are drawn from publick inconvenience and dishonesty, which are also parts of the Law of Nature: These Prohibitions are not of the first, but of the second sort, since the Immorality of them appears in this, that the Familiarities and Freedoms among near Relations are such, that if an horror were not struck in men at conjunctures in these degrees, Families would be much defiled. This is the Foundation of the Prohibitions of Marriages in these degrees: Therefore it is not strange if men did not apprehend it, before God made a Law concerning it. Therefore all examples before the Law, show only the thing is not so evident, at [sic] to be easily collected by the light of Nature.

Oldest Cottle-Mem. Book: I.e. N21; see CN I N21 Gen N and CN I 1637.

5084 30.49 Majestas populi: “Majesty”, or according to Coleridge’s etymology, “majority of the people”.

f40^v Henry’s Harυest: Henry VIII’s accumulation from the suppression of the monasteries. Thanes carries an overtone of ambitious rivalry even to the point of a threat to the royal power.

Reformators: Not in OED. Coleridge combining Latin and English?

Ecclesiæ Latinoe: “of the Latin Church”.

a very weak King: Charles I.

a Bigot for his Prime Minister (Laud): See 5042, also 4991, 5009, 5202 and nn.

Both Samson & the Philistines: Puritanism and the Laudite party in the church?

digged up alive out of the ruins: Like St Columba’s St Oran on Iona? See 5031.

reading…a Liturgy &…a Sermon: for Coleridge’s antipathy to read sermons, see CN III 4249 and below, 5240 and nn; also a MS note on Luther’s Table Talk quoted in Inq Sp § 305.

f41 “a church or a Unity of Brothers called out”; see 5082 and n.

5085 30.50 Corpus ecclesiasticum, or Ecclesiarum Unitas: “an ecclesiastical Body”, or “a Unity of churches”.

Burnet’s Preface, p. 10–12, History of Refⁿ Vol. II.: See 5082 and n; Burnet’s exposition of…the Pastoral Charge begins on p ix of the capital Preface preceding the quotation in 5082.

…The Pastoral Charge is now looked on by too many, rather as a device only for instructing People, to which they may submit as much as they think fit, than as a Care of Souls, as indeed it is: And it is not to be denied but the practice of not a few of us of the Clergy, has confirmed the People in this mistake, who consider our Function as a Method of living, by performing Divine Offices, and making Sermons, rather than as a watching over the Souls of the Flocks committed to us, visiting the Sick, reproving scandalous Persons, reconciling differences, and being strict at least in governing the Poor, whose necessities will oblige them to submit to any good Rules we shall set them for the better conduct of their Lives. In these things does the Pastoral Care chiefly consist, and not only in the bare performing of Offices, or pronouncing Sermons, which every one almost may learn to do after some tolerable fashion.

Elizabeth’s first step, according to Burnet, was in allowing a certain latitude in doctrinal opinions among her clergy; her error was in main-taining in her own hands “the Ancient Government of the Church” (xii), which led to factions fighting for their interests.

f41^v disruptio ab intrâ: “internal disruption”

κοινον ψευδος: “common error”.

For Coleridge’s interest in the distribution of powers among the royal, judicial, and legislative elements under the constitution, see e.g. CN III Index I under “Blackstone”.

Coleridge’s last paragraph refers to the conclusion of Burnet’s Preface (XV):

…since that God who is the Author of it is merciful, and full of Compassion, and ready to forgive; and this holy Religion which by his Grace is planted among us is still so dear to him, that if we by our own unworthiness do not render ourselves incapable of so great a Blessing, we may reasonably hope that he will continue that which at first was by so many happy concurring Providences brought in, and was by a continued Series of the same Indulgent care advanc’d by degrees, and at last raised to that Pitch of Perfection which few things attain in this World.

5086 30.51 (Viridescent.): I.e. quoting or paraphrasing or addressing or answering J.H.Green. The entry may usefully be read in conjunction with 5464 below.

Individual Life: On Coleridge’s objection to this usage, see 4662.

the Infusoria: See 4984 and n.

Totum in Singulo: “Whole in a Single One”.

Coleridge makes a favourite contrast—chemical Assimilation as opposed to a physical or mechanical accrescence. The last word is attributed by OED in two senses to Coleridge, in SM and LR II 220–21; see SM:LS (CC) 108, and a note on Hamlet I iv: ShC I 25.

the Ocularity of certain Animalcula, asserted…by Adams: George Adams (d 1773) in his Micrographia Illustrata, or The Knowledge of the Microscope Explain’d (1746), includes “A Translation of Mr.Joblott’s Observations on the Animalcula”, in which there are references (119) to finding in “an infusion of Pinks” a “little white Worm” with “two black Eyes” Chap XXXIII § VIII. Also (120) ibid § x, “Of an Infusion of Blue-Bottles”: “We have no Reason to doubt, but these minute Animalcules are furnished with Eyes, for two of the same Figure are often seen to approach each other without touching, and then turning with a prodigious Swiftness about their own Center.” Adams occasionally mentioned in passing, animalcules that have neither head nor eyes (129), or only one eye (137), and appears to assume in general the ocularity of animalculae, though he does not use the word. Neither is it in OED.

other Microscopians: E.g. Antony van Leeuwenhoek, the father of microbiology, on whom Adams drew? Coleridge referred to his Microsco-pium in a note on Thomas Browne’s Garden of Cyrus; CM I 792. T.Browne.

Possibly J.H.Green raised the question asked in this first paragraph, he being particularly interested in optical surgery; see 4984n.

Problema…præripere: “A Problem difficult of solution, that the Infusoria should be ahead of the vegetables and Zoophytes in the possession of a power totally denied to them, that of locomotion.” Adams mentioned both vegetable and animal infusoria.

motiunculæ: “slight movements”.

f43 indiffence: Not in OED. A slip? Coleridge made it several times in MS, not, apparently, in print.

in actu…conditiones: “in actuality, and a total in potentiality only, (i.e. a monad not essentially but accidentally and conditionally and therefore a monad only so long as the conditions last”.

Oken’s Wimmel, Flimmel, his Mihila: See 4813, 4984 and nn; in his Zoologie: Naturgeschichte V 12–56 Oken discussed primitive life, “Samenthiere”, “Infusorien”, “Schleimbläschen”, under the general order of “Mile” with the following classes:

Irdmile (earth mils): Wimmelwimmel, Rudelwimmel, Flimmelwimmel, Franselwimmel.

Wassermile (water mils): Wimmelrudel [etc]

Luftmile (air mils): Wimmelflimmel [etc]

Lichtmile (light mils): Wimmelfansel [etc]

Coleridge criticized these coinages in a lively note on a back flyleaf. Here he mocks Oken’s Mile as Mihila or Paulo Plusquam Nihila, “little more than Nothings”.

Auseinander: Presumably here the separated, the separata; Coleridge liked to play with the adverb auseinander, “from one another”, as in 4577, 4887, and 5115.

couthly: The OED says “rare” in some uses, “obsolete” in others, and calls it “a pseudo-archaism” for the opposite of “uncouthly”. It gives a reference to such a use by William Taylor Mon Mag (1816).

the idea of the Indifference of Space and Time: See below f44.

f43^v non <in actu> separata…the Separtibilia:“not actually separate but separable…the partibles”; cf Coleridge’s earlier cogitabilia as contrasted with cogitata in CN III 3881.

Genera generalissima: “the highest Genera”; cf CN III 4445.

pentadic or quinquarticular Dialectic: Coleridge equates the two adjectives, either disregarding the special meaning of the second or playing with a new use for the word usually reserved for a relationship to the five points of Arminian belief condemned by the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort in 1618 (see CM II 913).

Logic of Trichotomy: See 4784, 5143 and nn.

a quid pro quo—i.e. a partibilia pro partibus: “a substitution, i.e. partibles for parts”. On quid pro quo as a type of fallacy, see below 5110.

The P.S. appears to be Coleridge’s own Latin: “Time in the singular not apart from Space, or Time under the form of Space”.

Spatia in numero plurari [plurali]…: “Spaces in the plural number not apart from Time, or it is Space under the form of Time”.

Coinstantaneitas…: “Coinstantaneity=Space (with) negation of anticipated or imagined Time. For it must be posited, for it to be denied—therefore it is posited in the imagination only. Therefore, coinstantaneity is always and of necessity intuitive—on reflexion it ceases to be so and becomes a successive plurality. This very Plurality could not exist however except through antecedent Time—I mean exist subjectively, or be perceived.”

AGnized…recognized: Coleridge indulging his taste for prefixes and word play on cognize, perhaps out of awareness of the German kennen and anerkennen.

5087 30.52 D[uns] Scotus: Tennemann VIII 759–69, criticizes and summarizes Scotus’s arguments for the existence of a final cause, God, and at one point (765) says, less clearly than Coleridge, that Scotus’s logic seems to prove the contrary. All Scotus’s proofs seem to be identifiable in Tennemann’s quotation at VIII 765–6 fn from Scotus De Sententiis I dist 292:

Quia omne per se efficiens agit propter finem, et prius efficiens agit propter finem priorem, ergo primum efficiens agit propter ultimum finem. Sed propter nihil aliud a se principaliter et ultimate agit, quia nihil aliud a se potest esse finis ejus, ergo agit propter se sicut propter ultimum finem; ergo primum efficiens est ultimus finis…. Primum efficiens non est univocum respectu illarum naturarum effectarum, sed aequivocum, ergo eminentius et nobilius eis: ergo primum efficiens est eminentissimum.

Tr: Because every efficient cause-in-itself acts towards an end, and a higher efficient cause towards a higher end, therefore the first efficient cause acts towards the ultimate end. But it acts principally and ultimately towards nothing but itself, because nothing but itself can be its end, therefore it acts towards itself in its ultimate end; therefore the first cause is the final end…. The first cause is not of the same essence [as Coleridge puts it, having no measure or relation] in respect of those natures which are its effects, but of a different essence and therefore more perfect and more noble; therefore the first cause is most perfect.

his full confession…can be proved: Tennemann VIII 779 quoting Theorem XIV; Justice and Goodness appear to be Coleridge’s addition.

f45 Occam, speaks out…: Coleridge, following Tennemann, proceeds to discuss Occam’s views of the unprovability of [a] The Existence [b] the Unity [c] the Infinity and [d] the Intelligence of God.

[a] The Existence of God is an article of Faith: Tennemann VIII 872. a sustaining or conservative Cause: Ibid 877.

f45^v [b] the Unity of God: Ibid 878.

the infinity…of God: Ibid 878–9.

the Measure of Infinity as Plato well obserυes: Cf C&S (CC) 168n, which rightly suggests that Plato did not use the phrase but that either Jacobi or Schelling, who so interpret Plato, may be Coleridge’s immediate source here. Cf, however, Plato Laws 716 C, where might be taken to mean “infinite”, and where God is the measure of all things. See also a marginal note on Law’s Behmen in CM I under Böhme Works 31.

Intelligence [of God]: Tennemann VIII 879–80.

A long note on Duns Scotus written on the fly-leaves of Tennemann VIII, quoted in the notes to Lect 9 P Lects (CC), is helpful to an understanding of this entry.

It should be noticed that although we do not know which works of Duns Scotus Coleridge had read, we know he had been attempting to see them from 1801 to 1803— CN I 973A, 1006, 1824—and nn. CM I 254 shows that he had access to De sententiis. See also CL II 681, 746 and 1020. Tennemann’s ample quotations from Duns Scotus and Occam made it possible for Coleridge to quote directly.

5088 30.53 Occam asserts…Idea…producere: Tennemann (VIII 863–4 fn 23) gives Occam’s words referring them to In primum librum sententiarum 35. q. 5: (tr) “An Idea is something known by the effective intellectual Principle, looking at which the Active [principle] is able to produce rationally something in real existence.” Tennemann continues his quotation from Occam:

Tr: The Idea is not the Divine essence. Ideas are not in God subjectively and really, but they are in Him objectively as something known by Him, therefore the ideas themselves are things themselves producible by God— There are distinct ideas of all creatable things, just as things themselves are distinct from one another. Ideas are of single [things]

f46^v Scotus was nearer to the truth: Yet cf 5087 f45.

in υero et primo Esse: “in true and primary Existence”.

aliquid in Esse reali: “something in real Existence”.

f47 rerum singularium: “of single things”.

res singulares et distinctæ: “things single and distinct”.

“The Ideas in God are not his Essence…in themselves”: Coleridge appears to be translating Tennemann (VIII 880 using nearly the same words as above at VIII 863) “Die Ideen in Gott sind nicht sein Wesen, nicht in ihm subjectiv und real, sondern blos objectiv, als Muster der göttlichen Kraft, nach welchen sie dieselben hervorbringt, und daher von allen Dingen an sich verschieden”. See translation above. Tennemann referred in fn 47 880 to Occam I Questiones in quattor libros Sententiarum, dist. 38 (an error for dist. 35, there being no dist. 38) q. I.

5089 30.54 this scheme: Coleridge here appears to continue a discussion already in progress; learned readers seems to suggest a work intended for publication; clearly AR and CIS are possibilities, or was he thinking of “the whole Scheme of the Christian Faith” to have been exhibited and vindicated in the “proportionately larger Work…which I am now preparing for the Press under the title, Assertion of Religion, as necessarily involving Revelation; and of Christianity, as the only Revelation of permanent and universal validity”? AR 152. The conclusion, from And here it will not be impertinent, was used in AR 142.

Discursio intellectualis: “intellectual Discourse”.

elder Logicians designated the Understanding. See 4831 f57 and n.

f48 and here it will not be…: What follows was used again in AR 142.

f48^v philosophic Apostle…: Paul in I Cor 2:10–16.

Ita dico…Deo nemo est: Seneca Epistolae morales XLI 2: “This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit dwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so we are treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God.” Seneca Ad Lucilium tr Richard M.Gummere (LCL 3 vols 1917–25) I 273. Cf 5072 and n.

5090 3½.69 The entry was already set out near the top of f82^v when 5091 overran it. The MS has the appearance of tentativeness and work unfinished; the coinages, cancellations, and some apparent inconsistencies suggest trial and error.

On the diagrams, see discussions of the “Compass of Nature” in CN III 4418, 4420 and nn; and in this volume 4555, 5133 f97^v and nn.

This entry and 5092, which refers to it and therefore must also (like 5091) be subsequent, bear some relation to the discussion of coherence in CN III 4433 (see also ibid 4223, 4225) but the origin of it all is no more absolute here than in those entries.

There may be some attempt to improve upon the substance and vocabulary of Steffens’s theory of the earth, as may be seen in Coleridge’s marginalia on Steffens’s Beyträge 170– 73, 248–9; also marginalia on his Geognostisch-geologische Aufsätze 229–30, 243, 250. See also 5155 and n.

Tellus [“Earth”] is an organic Part of a System: As seen in 4662 and and and TL P 46– 7, 70, and in Coleridge’s critical reading of Steffens’s Beyträge 61; see 4551 and n.

a three-fold topo-tetractys: See 5092 below and n.

N=Estia: In 4910 f72 above, the Earth is both Rhea—transitory ever a flowing Nature…and Vesta, the eternal Law. The Greek form of the Roman Vesta is Hestia, (in this entry Estia), both words being etymologically connected with words meaning “stand”. Is Estia in this entry the Earth as fixed and stable, as opposed to the fluid Rhea? Is it the fire in the centre of the Earth, of the Pythagoreans? Or is it the Pythagorean “central fire” in the universe? This last was based on the concept of Philolaus that all the heavenly bodies revolved in an inclined circle, the earth e.g. circulating every twentyfour hours around a central point. This theory broke the barrier of the senses, foregoing as it did the concept of the centrality and immobility of the earth: the earth and other heavenly bodies revolved around the universal central fire which could not be seen by human beings because the habitable side of the earth was turned away from it, only the uninhabited western hemisphere towards it. This fire, the “altar” or “hearth” of the universe, was naturally a step away from the concept of a geocentric universe.

f83 The real powers would then be: See also the diagram on ƒ84 N.Estia would be Ω, the stable pheroid aspect of Earth.

S=Aphestia: “away from Estia”, i.e. its opposite, Y, air.

E= Idion Horizon:= “individual” “Horizon”/“limit”, i.e. Δ, it binds.

W=Catholon Apeiros:= “universal” “infinite”/“unlimited,” i.e. P, it makes flow.

The first and last tetractys are consistent with each other.

NM=Estia Prosestia: I.e. “Estia towards Estia”, i.e. M, the midpoint=Estia and Prosestia the approach towards it.

M.S.Estia Aphestia: I.e. “Estia away from Estia”, i.e. the departure from Estia.

N.E.Estia P.Orizomene: “Estia towards Estia limited”, i.e. by the Horizon.

N.W.Estia P.Exorizomene: “Estia towards Estia Unlimited”.

S.E. Aphestia Orizomene: “Away from Estia Limited”.

S.W. Aphestia Exorizomene: “Away from Estia Unlimited”. Phaetosa and Phæboumene appear to be Coleridgian coinages, perhaps meaning “blazing” and “lit”, “having been set on fire”, the first connected with Phaethon, son of Apollo, the second with Phoebus Apollo, the word forms suggesting the activity and force of the son, the passivity of the parent, the parent the regular driver of the fiery chariot, the son the defiant, destructive driver of it just as the central fire of the Pythagoreans (Hestia) was an invisible focus for the cosmos and a balance to the physical sun. (Phoebus Apollo was the sun god, his chariot the physical sun.)

Aphestia Exorizomene Phætosa…Chlorine Gas: Intermediate between South and East (as in the diagram), i.e. between oxygen and azote. Has it shifted? Cf below f83^v Azote…contracted by the South Oxygen… =Chlorine Gas.

Aphestia orizomene Phæboumene Oxygen Gas: East ideally, in the diagram to the NE; Aphestia S.M, verging to the méson tí within the circumference to the SE instead. Is there some confusion here? See 4555 and n.

méson tí=μεσον τι=“something in the middle”, i.e. the Equator.

all four [compass points or elements] must co-inhere: See CN III 4420 f19^v and n. All real elements involve the four ideal powers (NSWE) but in each element one power predominates.

Chlorizon: “being greenish”/“pale, tending to chlorine”.

Chloros: “green”.

ƒ83^v Orud…Udor: See 5092 and n.

Puriphosphoros: Coleridge’s coinage, “fiery light bearer”.

Oριζoμενη: Orizomene above, i.e. “limited” [by the horizon].

Puriphlegethon, his usual spelling of Pyriphlegethon, one of the rivers of hell, “blazing with fire”.

f84 Air…Azote: On Azote see 4536 and n. The NS axis, corresponding to carbonazote, is the line of metalleity—from diamond, the maximum of coherence, to nitrogen, positive fluidity; see above 4555 and n, TL 69.

Hyphydroguret: I.e. with the minimum of hydrogen.

Phostopyr: “Light-fire”, Coleridge’s coinage.

Pyriphos: “Fire-light”, also Coleridge’s coinage.

Oros: “Limit”.

Hydōr: the Greek Yδωρ is so admirable to express “the middle” the essential cosmic fluid (cf e.g. the Water in Water of CN III 4420) that Coleridge in his table coins a new word Hydes for water as elemental power in the Quaternion or tetractys.

Y (ψιλον): “light or thin υ” (or y); the name of the letter with which [H]ydor (water) begins in Greek.

aer tenuis: “thin air”.

δεω: “I bind”.

Ω (the stable Spheröid): See above f82^v. The Greek long O looks like a Spheroid on a base.

PI flow.

See above 4868 and n on the firmamental and the fluid.

5091 3½.68 This entry was written after 5090 was already on the page. Change the last line may refer to 5090 f82^v.

There appears to be an odd poetical relation here to the diagram and terms of 5090, with images reminiscent of Time, Real and Imaginary: PW I 420. The fanciful association of innocence with east, hope & wisdom with west, was not developed in any known poem of Coleridge; this entry appears to be an aborted draft. Innocence is contrasted with Wisdom as Start is with Goal, or as the Proeteritum perfectum, “past perfect”, is with the conditional Future; cf WW Intimations of Immortality § V; WPW IV 281.

head wreathed with a glory: Cf the woodman “winding westward up the glen” who

Sees full before him, gliding without tread, An image with a glory round its head….

Constancy to an Ideal Object lines 26–30: PW I 456. See also CN II 2052 and n.

5092 3½.23 The first line is inserted on f30^v between CN I 390 and 391.

see p. 26, i.e. 5090 f82^v, datable after 1821, which must therefore antedate this entry; see above 5090. Both these entries are clarified to some extent by TL 53–5; see also 5406 and n.

Cf with these anagrams on the words βαθυ, “deep”, and υδωρ, “water”, 5090 and n, and CN in 4226 for a similar diagram and related discussion. See also the notes to these entries for the possible link with Steffens.

Contractive…Dilative: See CN III 4418 and n; 4555, 4659 and n.

But taking the Surface: Whereas the NS axis is the power symbolised by the dimension of length and acts lineally (5406, and TL 87 foll), electricity is the surface power, the EW axis (TL 90); see 4555 f49 and 4929 and nn on this point.

The analogy with Yδωρ=Water: Water is the synthesis or indifference of oxygen and hydrogen, which are themselves the east-west elements in the Compass of Nature, corresponding to the polar electrical powers, and thus a surface power.

instead of βαθυ take Chrûs: χρυσον==“gold”, for the centre of the Globe.

is the standard alchemical symbol for gold, and Coleridge’s symbol for metalleity. The assumed chemical “elements” are symbols of power—The Friend (CC) I 470— and the junction point, in “the Compass of Nature” (4555) is chemically metal (CN III 4418), and centrality for Coleridge is metal; see 4555, and the table of symbols in App A. The additional association of gold with the sun and the sun with the cosmic centre is also present here.

5093 25.95 The first ciphers or whatever the strokes of the dry pen were in making the first marks, are very faint, possibly partly erased. The intention seems rather to conceal than reveal.

5094 25.97 On Logic cf 4763 and the additional references in the n.

The Stoic…mean: Coleridge seems to be using Ernst Platner Philosophische Aphorismen (2 vols Leipzig 1793–1800) 115. He annotated this work, and, as is now known, referred to it in CN I 905. See also above 5079 and n.

conveniency: “Formerly more frequent than convenience…”

OED. Here having the meaning of “fittingness” or “congruity”.

Ars et regula…ratiocinandi: “The formal art and rule of reasoning”.

Speculative…Eργον: Cf Platner I 14, where he, too, gives only the three Greek words (“Truth and Action”), the rest in German referring to Aristotle Metaphysics II i 5 (993 b): “The object of speculative knowledge is truth, that of practical knowledge is action.” f105 A corner of the f105 leaf was torn out before anything was written on it; Coleridge numbered the pages afterwards.

Metaphysica (sensu generalissimo): “Metaphysics (in the most general sense)”.

κατ' εξοχην: “in the highest sense”.

f104^v Logic would be subdivided…: Cf Logic (CC) 52 and n.

Philalethy: “love of truth”; Philagathy: “love of good”. Not in OED. Cf above 5080 and n.

Theosophy, or Religion: Cf 4517 f97 and n.

5095 25.96 The entry was written after 5094 was on ƒI05^v and overruns it between its first few lines.

These appear to be some general reflexions on the material of 5082, 5084, 5085 and possibly 5202, and a reading of Burnet and other works on the struggles between church and state under the Stuarts. At what date or dates this subject most absorbed Coleridge is not known, but a letter to Hessey 9 Sept 1823 (CL V 299) suggests that the reading of Leighton for AR must have fostered it, or may even have prompted it. See also AR 156. This entry may be later than the others cited above as it seems to point towards C&S.

jure divino: “by divine law”.

5096 30.4 This entry is in the hand of John Watson, Gillman’s apprentice. Watson, from about the beginning of 1821 “a House-mate” and a member of Coleridge’s weekly class on logic (CL V 226–7), was frequently and affectionately mentioned in Coleridge’s letters; he died in 1827. Cf 4843, 4989 and nn.

The transcript from the second edition of Alciphron: or the Minute Philosopher (2 vols 1732) is from Dialogue 4 on “The Truth of Theism”, §§ 11, 12, between Alciphron and Euphranor.

Coleridge’s reason for asking to have this passage copied out may be linked with his attack on Berkeley in 4540, 5081 above and below in 5276 and n.

5097 30.5 De potestate maritali: “On marital authority”. The purpose of this discussion is not obvious, though in 1823 Coleridge may have been thinking about Sara’s engagement to her cousin HNC. That took place in London between 5 Jan and 3 Mar 1823 (CL V 267 and n), the marriage not until 3 Sept 1829. Did Coleridge have some inkling of the engagement? Or was he talking with his friend Allsop who had marital problems? (see below 5164 and n). Or just generally working towards his essay on Marriage or his discussion of marriage in AR 55 and fn?

f7^v Punctum Identitatis: “Point of Identity”.

(N.B. You cannot too early be guarded against…Negative: Is he addressing a specific young person?

aliquid correlativum: “a something that is correlative”.

f8 S^t Paul: E.g. Eph 5:22.

Overly: OED ascribes the word to Coleridge citing LR IV 140, where it was applied to Baxter in the sense of “overbearing” or “imperious”. See CM I under Baxter Reliquiae Baxterianae Copy B ii 69.

f8^v H[usband] to the W[ife]

f9 punctum Indifferentiae: “point of indifference”.

Marriage the great Mystery: I.e. a Sacrament, Coleridge contended; hence his rejection of divorce, theoretically and personally; see his refinement of these views in 5348.

f9^v Law is too coarse: Was the introduction of the subject here related in any way to Hazlitt’s recent divorce case, the proceedings of which were public from Apr to Aug 1822?

f10^v M^r Martin’s Act of Parliament: Richard Martin (1754–1834) of Galway, in the House of Commons 18 May–22 July 1822, carried through “A Bill to prevent cruel and improper treatment of Cattle”.

For Coleridge’s view on women in marriage see also Inq Sp §§ 227–34.

5098 30.1=…I have elsewhere noticed the insufficiency of this sign: See 4545 and n. The remark appears also in an annotation on Kant’s essay Metaphysicæ cum geometria junctæ usus in philosophia naturali: in CM under Kant VS (Copy C) IV 267.

The signs here appear, among many others, in notes on Swedenborg De equo albo; see 5102 and n. Cf App A.

5099 30.97 Mon 19 Jan 1824? See 5101, 5106 and nn; also 5110 and n (in which this N 30 is referred to). Coleridge’s feeling for frost and snow and subtle moods of weather would have produced an interesting weather-book; see e.g. CN I 847, 979, 1568, 1784, 1806, 1809, 1811, 1812, 1821, 1836; CN II 2309, 2796, 2817, 2956, 2981, 3001; CN III 3414, 4254; and below, the next two entries.

On the Halo mob-cap, see below 5101.

5100 30.98 Tuesday 27 Jan 1824, or the week before? See 5099 n.

As 5110 refers to this book being filled 27 Jan, possibly these entries belong to the penultimate week in Jan.

5101 30.99 Thursday 22/29 Jan? See 5099n, and 5102n.

5102 30.100 Tulk (see above 4799 and n) apparently sent to Coleridge for comment his translation of Swedenborg’s An Appendix to the Treatise on the White Horse, either in MS or a printed copy. The Preface of the translation is dated 21 Oct 1823; it was published in 1824. In acknowledging the gift Coleridge wrote, 26 Jan 1824 (CL V 324), “The following hasty note [on] a part at least of the many thoughts that crowd on me in the perusal of Swedenborg's Writings…the beginning of which I must transcribe as I unluckily began it on the second side of a Leaf in my Mem. Book—”. The Mem Book was N 30, f52 of which, i.e. this entry, had to be transcribed on letter paper for Tulk. The next two leaves were simply cut out and sent in continuation of the letter. See CL V 325. Measurements of the notebook and the two leaves in the MS letter in PML confirm this.

the Doctrine of Symbols or Correspondences: Tulk’s introduction stresses the importance of studying the principles of correspondency as suggested by Swedenborg (p 18) and of raising it from an art to a science (p 6), without suggesting how this is to be done. See also CL V 325. In a work posthumously published, The Science of Correspondency and other Spiritual Doctrines of Holy Scripture, ed Charles Pooley (1889), Tulk appears to have attempted to meet Coleridge's criticism. In the second paragraph of the Preface (pp ix–x) some phrases may echo Coleridge:

We hold that the spiritual doctrines of Christianity, which we have found to be identical with the highest and noblest philosophy, are not discoverable in its literal and obvious text, but only in a certain interior or spiritual sense, which is wholly distinct from that of the letter. The science, which enables us to reach this interior sense, is of a strictly philosophical kind, being founded upon an accurate and intimate acquaintance with the spiritual structure of the human mind, the manner in which its faculties are formed, and are connected with the phenomena of nature.

The work itself consists of nine chapters describing the Principles of the “Science”, and then the application of these to some of the Psalms and the Lord’s Prayer.

5103 30.101 Arithmetic is founded on three rules: I.e. rather than on the usually cited four—addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

determinate Intuitions: I.e. axioms.

whether Number be a mere Intuitus…or whether it does <not> partake of a Noumenon: See 4679, 5298 f23 and nn.

relations…to all other plurarility-faggots: As in 5086 a slip over plurar for plural, but an interesting anticipation of the relativistic numerical systems of the “new mathematics”.

Unitarian-Notion: I.e. the denial that one God can be triune; Coleridge’s discussion of numbers here seems never far from theological considerations; cf 5283 and n.

ens absoluto simplex: “something/being absolutely uncompounded/without parts”.

Strictly speaking 3 is the first number…: The logic of this is seen best in geometry, as Coleridge’s illustration with Pebbles and Limpets shows; it can be seen in arithmetic by the fact that calculations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division cannot take place until three items are involved.

two Limpets: A slip for two Pebbles.

interjacentic: OED gives only an 1854 date for “interjacence”; presumably here Coleridge’s coinage. For a similar word-building from jaceo “I lie”, cf CN III 4456 f34.

The remainder of the entry is a consideration of the fact that there may be either four rules or only two, division being a complex or involved subtraction. Coleridge’s terms remind one of his father’s names for cases in his Latin grammar, i.e. more complex than the principles of pedagogy require.

5104 30.102 The entry breaks off in mid-page.

On this same subject see 5060 and 5119.

6, 7, and 8^th Chapters of Genesis: I.e. the Flood stories.

Arkites: I.e. Noah and his family.

f50^v two sources of the diluvial Water: Gen 7:11 and 12 identify them as “the fountains of the great deep” and the “rain”. Cf Gen 7:18.

Waters five miles high…: Gen 7:19–21 states that the waters covered the highest mountains by 15 cubits, or 22 to 26 feet. If the highest mountain is 29,000 feet, the waters would have to be 29,026, or just 14 feet under 5½ miles, a favourite kind of speculation among the literalist interpreters.

5105 30.2 Cf Coleridge’s recommendation to C.A.Tulk on a leaf extracted from this notebook (26 Jan 1824) to consult, in order to understand “Hartley’s scheme” [of interpreting dreams, prophecies, symbols?], “Achmetes, Artemidorus, and the Oneirocritici generally—(I believe they have been edited, the Greek at least, collectively).…” CL V 326. See 5102 and n. The Oneirocritica of Achmet and Artemidorus were published together in Greek, with a Latin translation, and with works on the same subject by Astrampsyches and Nicephorus, in Paris in 1603. On Astrampsyches see above 4690 and n. Artemidorus and Achmet, son of Sereim, wrote centuries apart about the interpretation of dreams under the same title, Oneirocritica, the first c 150–200 AD, the second c 813–833—if the latter was in fact by him; it is sometimes dated as late as 1176.

5106 30.56 Derwent’s arrival from Cambridge: See 4593 and n.

In his letter of the same date (5102 and 5105 nn) Coleridge wrote of Derwent, “I am under great affliction of mind from the diseased state of mind in relation to his moral & religious System of Thinking (N.b.—not of Action, thank God!) in which I find my second Son—O what a Place of Poisons that University of Cambridge is—Atheism is quite the Ton among the Mathematical Geniuses, Root and Branch Infidelity!—And ‘the arrow flieth in Darkness’” (CL V 327). See also 5113 and n.

5107 30.57 This entry follows 5106 on f49^v, with the notebook reversed; the page is numbered, by Coleridge, 38 in this direction and 92 in the other; these entries are upside down in relation to 5108. See 5108 n.

The guilt-ridden reflexions may well have been induced by the conversation with Derwent (5106), but there are many entries revealing this mixture of envy and despair. See e.g. CN I 1248, 1546; CN II 2016, 2063, 2086.

in posse: “in potential”.

Velle: “Will”.

Hoc Age! “Do This”.

5108 30.55 The entry was written after 5107 was already on f49^υ from the other end of the notebook; the last sentence here was compressed to avoid it. According to N 29 (5110) the last entry was made in this book 27 Jan 1824, i.e. this entry or 5109; see 5110 n.

a Bauer or other eminent Microscopic Experimenter. Franz Andreas Bauer (1758– 1840) was an Austrian who met Joseph Banks in London in 1788 and was through him appointed as artist and microscopist at Kew where he lived for the rest of his life. He worked on pollens, algae, fungi, and the diseases of cereals, doing many beautiful illustrative drawings for botanical, physiological, and other scientific works. Was there also here a sly and punning recollection of a favourite anecdote in CN I 390?

Bakers Microscopes left to the R.S.: Henry Baker (1698–1774) wrote on the only collection of microscopes owned by the Royal Society in the early nineteenth century, “An Account of Mr Leeuwenhoek’s Microscopes” Phil Trans (1740) XLI 503–19. Leeuwenhoek’s microscopes were notoriously difficult to use. It seems likely that there is an elision here, either of Coleridge’s thoughts or his words, and that it was these microscopes described by Baker which Davy found impractical.

my Remarks in a former Mem. Book: Possibly a reference to CN I 390 cited above, about the present concept of seeing, but perhaps to some entry on Davy and microscopes in a missing notebook.

f49^v abstraction…a fertigkeit [“readiness”]: For Coleridge on abstraction see 4630 and cf 4657 where he appears to be trying to contrast abstraction and images. A note in the fly-leaves of his copy of Kant’s Logik (Königsberg 1800) is clearer: “Abstractions descend into Images, or total Impressions: but an Idea never passes into an Abstraction and therefore never becomes the equivalent of an Image…. I. and A. are ipso facto diverse…Heterogenes cannot be opposed, the one to the other”. See above 4945n and Logic (CC) 63. The point was philosophically important to him in debating against philosophers as diverse as Locke and Schelling. See also 4538 and n, on abstraction and generalization.

Coleridge struggled to analyze Obscurity, having often been accused of it; cf 4676 and n above.

5109 30.58 respective ad ipsum Y: “with respect to Y itself”.

A. B——W—: I.e. with respect to the whole process lying behind, as from A to W.

A=A—: I.e. A as the starting point is the determinant of the entire process.

5110 29.229 A physical peculiarity appears in the notebook in this entry. On the upper left hand (gutter side) of f112^v a small piece of paper about 1½×2¼ inches was stuck down while the page was still blank. The entry is written straight across in disregard of it. The scrap had writing on the other side. Possibly an accidental blob from a gluepot fastened it down and it was thought that any attempt to remove it would damage the leaf.

The red Mem. Book marked Ramsgate: I.e. N 30; see 5100. This useful memorandum dates all entries in this notebook from here to 29.265 (5189), i.e. all on ff113−119^v, as later than 26/27 Jan 1824—with one exception; see 4878 and n.

36 Leaves…I therefore page them anew: This page (f113) had been paginated with the book being used from the other end, as p 229, Coleridge’s pagination being by odd numbers only, in what were then the upper right hand corners, now the lower left. (His first numbering of the pages ran from 1 to 343 throughout the book; these 36 Leaves were pp 229–187.) His new paging went from 1 to 4 but from there was by even numbers only in the upper right corners; it runs to 42 pages, not leaves, and f92 might have been 43, but f91^v he did not number as 44 because it was not entirely blank. See 5229 n.

Of Kant’s only possible Demonstration: Translating the title of Kant’s essay, “Der einzigmögliche Beweisgrund zur Demonstration des Daseyns Gottes”, Coleridge refers to a long note on Vol II, M^r Greens Copy, one of the three annotated copies of Kant’s VS, where this work appears in Vol II; see CN III 3889n, and Coleridge’s long annotation appearing in CM under Kant, VS (Copy C) II §§ I. 2. 3.

Quid pro Quo: A false substitution invalidating a chain of argument. See AR 37 on the importance of detecting it. Also Logic (CC) 217.

Regressus ad infinitum: “infinite Regress”.

υi Postulati: “by the strength of the Postulate”.

In p. 105 K. affirms: The same work is annotated in this page also, where Kant says:

Tr: The proof of the existence of God which we give is simply constructed on the fact that something is possible. Accordingly it is a proof which can be inferred absolutely à priori. Neither my existence nor that of other spirits, nor that of the corporeal world is presupposed.

Coleridge comments: “Surely, this is but a quibble. If it does not presuppose, it implies my knowledge of my existence, and my existence as proved in the knowledge of it. Possibility has no meaning but in relation to Existence: and Existence has no meaning (nihil noscibile) but by relation to the knowledge.”

f112^v Causa sciendi…hoc esse: “Cause of knowledge or the cause why I know that this is” or “Cause of existence (or cause why this thing is)".

nomen collectitvum: “a collective name”.

Numerus Indifferens: “Indeterminate Number”.

Numerus Singularis: “Singular Number”.

παγκοινον: See 4923 above; “common to all”.

“One and all”, a phrase often used by Jacobi and the German pantheists. Berkeley in Siris § 354 attributes a use to Xenophanes. It appears also in Stobaeus, attributed to Melissus and Zeno. Cf McFarland CPT 301–2, 341–2.

If Kant could have shewn some one eternal Possible…: For Coleridge elsewhere on what he considered a prime defect in Kant’s logic and in his theology, see also 5114 below, and n.

5111 29.230 The Greek letters for op[iu]m are written directly below the first word Oracle; the whole entry is compressed at the foot of the page but The Oracle does appear deliberately to relate opium to Delphi.

As the Delphic oracle spoke through the intoxicating υapor rising from a crevice in the rock, then was interpreted by priests, so Coleridge interprets the messages that come to him through the mist of opium, which (unlike those at Delphi) are from a genuine oracle that speaks truly.

5112 29.231 AP 303. “Few die of a broken Heart”: The selfpitying comment was unknowingly glossed a few years later by SH: “Coleridge is gone! He died a most calm & happy death—tho’ he had suffered great pain for some time previous—He was opened— the disease was at his heart”. SH Letters 428.

hard and unthinking Prosperity. Cf “the Hard-heartedness of healthy People” noted (in a Wordworth context) very early, in CN I 1825.

5113 29.232 Mem. of the æra of Phil[osophical] Necess[ity]… my true Lehrjahre: I.e. true “years of learning”. This is perhaps Coleridge’s best-balanced statement about the radicalism of his Cambridge and early post-Cambridge years; it is difficult to date his fluctuating views precisely, some of the witnesses, like Thelwall, being as subject to personal bias in these matters as Coleridge himself. See The Friend (CC) II 25–6; also ibid xcviii–ix, I 35, 108, 326, 331, 338 and nn. On necessitarianism as a natural stage psychologically in the maturing of young minds see 4508 and n.

The World…not the object: In contrast with D. & his Perverters. Derwent was a Cambridge undergraduate from May 1821 to Jan 1824 at St John’s College. Coleridge’s letters to him are full of anxieties, many of them linked with recollections of his own mistakes (CL V 139–40) and the fear that Derwent was making others also—intellectual vanity, atheism, and in general, worldliness, dress, fast society, summed up as “this accursed Coxcombry” (CL V 191–7). See also CL V 278, 327, 330, 336, 524, where it is clear that the Peruerters were Charles Austin (Jesus College) and Thomas Babington Macaulay (Trinity College). See also 5106 and n, and from another angle 5268.

5114 29.233 Kant’s “Der einzigmögliche Beweisgrund zur Demonstration des Daseyns Gottes” (1769), referred to in 5110, provided a summary of his cosmogony, as described in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels (1775), the view that there is one necessary unchanging and eternal Being which is and contains the highest Reality and that this is arguable from the orderliness of nature.

La Lande’s Nonsense, of Dead Letter Boxes: Possibly a reference to Joseph Jérôme Lalande’s Theory of nature as random, e.g., in his Réflexions sur les comètes, qui peuυent approcher de la terre (Paris 1773), in which he theorized statistically on the chances of a collision between earth and a comet (cf 5422), thus conflicting sharply with Kant. No reference by Lalande or any other to his Dead Letter Boxes has been traced, but it is easy to believe, e.g. from his two witty supplements to S.Maréchal Dictionnaire des Athées, that somewhere he made a blasphemous bon mot about petitions of the religious to the powers above going to the equivalent of Dead Letter Boxes. Lalande’s “atheism” is described by Coleridge in 5413 as “lifeless”. See also AR 177–8.

5115 29.234 Abbt’s Essays: Printed with omissions and editorial tinkering in “Omniana 1809–16”: LR I 380–86. Coleridge used Thomas Abbt’s Vermischte Werke edited by Nicolai (6 vols Berlin & Stettin 1768–81), of which two volumes from his set (or Green’s, for they were in Green SC) survive in Princeton University Library; Coleridge’s annotations, appearing in CM I, are negative and impatient. Presumably they were made at an earlier reading, which may have influenced HNC in assigning such an early approximate date to this entry when he included it in LR. There is no other discernible logic behind such a dating; the entry begins low on f112, following two [? 1824] entries (5113 and 5114) which seem to follow 5110 dated 27 Jan 1824. Possibly HNC did not himself see this notebook; there is the pencilled “d” (=“copied”) at the top of many entries, and also here some vague (initials?), which may indicate the transcriber [“EHHC”/E44D?]. They are very faint. If HNC did see N 29, his failure to use some materials in it is difficult to understand. But whatever the explanation, his dating of this entry appears to be wrong.

auseinandersetzen: See also 4887 and n.

Tom Jones and Sir Charles Grandison. Mem to look for it: Conclusive evidence of an earlier reading. Coleridge could have found the passage in Pt I 141–2 where Abbt describes the “cleverness” of the good heart:

Tr: A wisdom whose governess is a good heart, and which alone always attains its end. Among the new writers no-one, methinks, has succeeded as well as Fielding in showing the good heart in a fictitious character and in a sequence of the most natural of actions. Every reader comes to feel such an affection for his Tom Jones that he can neither disown nor abandon him, let the youth forget himself almost as much as he will. If we compare his story with the extract from the early life of Cyrus, we see that the portraits are copied from each other but with the difference that in the one painting humour and the events of a lower estate produce livelier colours than the other.

Grandison’s character on the other hand is founded more on benevolence than on the good heart: hence there is something serious about it which holds the readers back & does not open their heart as much as towards the former. Richardson does not in general seem to have succeeded in presenting the character of the good heart.

Luther and Calvin? After Abbt’s counterposing of Fielding’s Tom Jones and Richardson’s Grandison, Coleridge looks for parallels. Luther and Calvin do not fit, they being men of fixt conscious Principles (real or apparent) rather than spontaneous goodness of heart, whereas Fielding’s Parson Adams (Joseph Andrews), and his Dr Harrison (Amelia) may be compared as two differing but more or less innocent good-hearted souls.

Laud: See 5042 and n.

A G.H. the Pharisaic Righteousness: The sign for “opposite to” serves here in contrast with (different from) above.

f111^v Principia jam fixa et firmata: “Principles already fixed and firm”; cf the goal of The Friend: (CC) I xxxvii, xciii, 326–36, 439.

prematurities: OED cites Coleridge and this entry as printed in LR (see above) for the first use of the word in this sense, thus wrongly assigning an 1812 date to it. LR I 381.

“forbidding little children to come thereunto”: Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16.

Egotism, and its unhandsome Vizard, Contempt: Cf CN I 904.

f111…such Individuals cannot…be said to have a Self: Lacking consciousness of self and its connexions; see 4717 and n, CN III 3593; also in this volume 5276, 5280 and nn. See on Self-insufficiency 4730.

a tergo not…are prospectâ: “from behind”…“motivated by a thing seen ahead”.

Stoff: The “stuff, material”.

f110^v Desire of Distinction: See among numerous other statements in the notebooks, CN III 3291 and n for Coleridge’s life-long interest in this subject.

f110…sent with broom before…: Shakespeare A Midsummer Night’s

Dream V ii 19–20.

f109^v a Cassius (quote the passage…): Presumably Shakespeare Julius Caesar I ii: “Men at some time are masters of their fates:/The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/But in ourselves”.

The passage inserted at the end of the entry, <I have often . . . this mediation>, was put there after 5116 was on the page.

5116 29.235 The problem that Coleridge was here considering has to do with the dates of the documents making up the Flood story of Gen 6 to 9. Eichhorn (AT I 263 foll), like earlier critics, had pointed out that at least two documents are conflated, one of which has the animals enter the ark by sevens and the other by pairs, male and female of the clean and unclean. Cf 4667 and n. The distinction between clean and unclean, however, was not made in the Law until after the Exodus (Lev I I).

Noah…Proto-parent: Coleridge here connects the name Noah with the Greek for “nine”, and the Latin for “nine” and “new”; there is no such etymological connexion and Noah in Hebrew means “comforter”. Noah was the new Proto-parent after the Flood, and Gen 5:1–32 names the nine patriarchs after Adam, with their generations.

clean and unclean: Lev 11 makes the distinctions between these, forbidding the unclean as food.

íερα καì βεβηλα: “holy and profane”. Coleridge attempts to translate into Greek the “clean” and “unclean” of Gen 7 and Lev 11, but the words in the Septuagint are or and pairs(holy) with βέβηλα (e.g. Lev 10:10) for the distinction between “clean” and “not clean”.

at least in Egypt: See 4794 f34^v on Moses’ development of his creed while still in Egypt.

the Narration: I.e. of the Flood story.

5117 29.236 Canon, De Causis non sine causâ multiplicandis: “The rule about causes not being multiplied without cause”. A variant of “Occam’s razor”?

Kant in KrV (1799) 680 quoted “Entia praeter necessitatem non esse multiplicanda”, referring to it as a well-known scholastic maxim.

5118 29.237 After ON INSPIRED WRITINGS someone has pencilled in “(B 40/60)”, possibly a transcriber’s notation of some sort.

Coleridge’s most cogent and influential attack on literal “inspiration” and bibliolatry is to be found in CIS. See also 5334.

the words of the Fathers…3 first Centuries: The words are Lumen Spiritus Dei, “the Light of God’s Spirit”; see 5228 and n.

5119 29.238 Greenough…ask him: On Coleridge’s friend of Göttingen days, see CN I N 3 Gen N, CN II 1864, 1886 and nn. Coleridge’s proposed question to him appears to arise from a review article in QR (Apr 1823) XXIX 138–65 on William Buckland’s Reliquiae Diluvianae; or Observations on the Organic Remains contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on other Geological Phenomena, attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge (1823). See above 5104 and n. The reviewer (140) poured scorn on James Hutton (see CN I 243 and n) for his theory of “an expansive force [heat] supposed to act from beneath and heave up the submarine strata already hardened by the central fire, again to be submerged in the ocean…in endless succession”. Was Coleridge going to ask Greenough whether this was unreasonable? The reviewer quoted Greenough as saying that to account for the subsiding and elevation of continents we must assume “Impetuosity of Motion in the Water”, and also that an increased quantity of water would be superfluous. Yet Greenough accepted the Deluge story, suggesting that it may have been caused by a passing comet. Was Coleridge proposing Geysers or siphons under great pressure as more likely and equally biblical? It is not confirmed whether Coleridge had read Greenough’s Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology (1819).

under the Crust, called Land: For Coleridge’s theory of the “dividing of the waters” (Gen 1:6) see CN III 4418 f10^v, 4551 and n. The QR reviewer also referred (140) to “the whole crust of the Globe”.

“breaking up the fountains of the Great Deep”: Gen 7:11; the question Coleridge asked is a fairly usual explanation of the reason for the flood, summarized in QR 140–44 and linked chiefly with Hutton, Playfair, DeLuc, and Cuvier.

f108^v diluvial Gravel…the last and perhaps irregular Precipitate: A reference to the Neptunian notions of Abraham Werner, who believed that all the rocks on the surface of the earth, such as granite, basalt, sediments, and gravels, had separated out of the flood in orderly succession. QR 150 summarizes Buckland’s theory that the diluvial gravel was the final deposit. Werner was attacked by Hutton, who correctly distinguished igneous and sedimentary rocks. The debate between the Neptunian and Plutonian views was very much alive at this time.

the Rain-bow. (Gen 9:12–13) was referred to in the QR article (154) as evidence of a change in atmosphere after the Deluge.

If Hydrogen and Nitrogen…the same Metal: The potential interconvertibility of nitrogen and hydrogen is intelligible on Coleridge’s terms of powers and Stoff (see e.g. see e.g. 4555) and also from the work of Davy and Berzelius; see e.g. Davy as cited in Levere Affinity and Matter 26. Coleridge was speculating that if hydrogen and nitrogen are both compounds of a metallic base with oxygen then the atmosphere (nitrogen+oxygen) may be viewed as containing water (hydrogen+oxygen).

our philosophizing Noachists: E.g. Greenough. Coleridge suggests a way of disposing of the waters of the Flood by a conversion of H [+ O] into N [+O] in the atmosphere, the preliminary passage of water into the atmosphere creating the first rainbow.

Fancies that pretend to be no better than Fancies: See also 4765 above.

5120 29.239 For Coleridge on Unitarians and Unitarianism see 4857.

5121 29.240 A young man of from 3 to 5+20: DC was born in 1800; on Coleridge’s despair at this time [c. 1824] of finding him of a reflective mind see 5113 and n.

the ornithorhynchus, or duck-billed platypus, was the subject of an article, “Some particulars respecting the Ornithorhynchus Paradoxus” by H. Scott in QJSLA (LXVII 1824) 247–50; Phil Mag (Jan-Jun 1823) LXI 8–9 also had this article, crediting it to Phil Trans (1822). As Phil Mag ran in the same number other articles to which Coleridge appears to make reference, including one on Bichat, it may be the most likely source; see 4825, 5168, 5189 and nn.

Des Cartes’ Meditations…: Meditationes de prima philosophia, in quibus Dei existentia, & animae humanae a corpore distinctio demonstratur; his adjunctae sunt variae objectiones doctorum υirorum in istas de Deo & anima demonstrationes; cum responsionibus auctoris (4th ed Amsterdam 1678) was listed in Green SC; but see CN III 4259 and n. Tennemann X 267–82 summarized the objections and identified the writers.

Des Cartes’ De Methodo: See CN III 4259 and n.

my “Elements of Discourse”: I.e. the Logic (CC).

“about first principles”.

f108 Bacon’s Novum Organum: See CN II 3174 and n.

Articles in Bruckers Hist. Phil…. Aristotle: J.J.Brucker Historia critica philosophiae (2nd ed 6 vols Leipzig 1766–7) I 627–728, 776–981; also in the English translation and abridgment by William Enfield (1819) 206–42, 259–98, 315–36; see “Prospectus” Phil Lects (1949) 67.

four first Volumes, (octavo) of Tennemann: I.e. from the pre-Socratics to Philo of Larissa and Antiochus of Ascalon (sceptics of the first century BC) most of Vol III, 330 pages, being on Aristotle.

προπαιδεvτικον: “prediscipline”, as in 5123 below and elsewhere. Plato Republic 536 D.

5122 29.241 The entry represents one of Coleridge’s many attempts to set forth and defend his system, in this case in the form of meeting an objection by a supposed antagonist, accusing him of quibbling in positing a self-caused God (the infinite) who then caused Nature (the finite), rather than admitting it to be just as logical that Nature is selfcaused. Many other statements of Coleridge’s system help to elucidate this one; see e.g. CN III 4449, 4450, and in this volume 4554, 4645, 4775, 4776, 4853, 5248 and nn.

undisguised Contradiction, or avowed Circle in Argument: I.e. that it is just as illogical to posit God as the infinite cause of the finite as to posit Nature itself as the cause of its own infinite series of finites; in other words, that he is guilty of the illogicallity of which he accused pantheists.

For what will not come out of Plus must come out of Minus: I.e. the series of finites may be negatives from zero to infinity or positive from zero to infinity.

incomprehensible …: See CN III 4319 for Coleridge’s use of this symbol to represent this identity of the finite with the infinite.

Contradiction and the Circle were of Nature’s putting…: I.e. what if this seeming contradiction were the result of Nature’s being what it is—this infinite phenomenalizing of finite forms; but this is only the lower dynamic, so my+O (disparity of infinite from finite) is not equal to+ O−(identity of infinite and finite).

Your Causa sui is just as bad: I.e. your positing God as the infinite Cause of himself (and Nature) is a tautology.

say with Gassendi, Qua propter qui…: In Gassendi § 3 of Objection 5 to Descartes’ Meditations: Coleridge could have seen it in Gassendi Opera (1658) III 523 (see the next note) or in the Appendix (p 20) to Descartes Meditationes (see the previous note and CN III 4259): “Wherefore…he who says that a thing is infinite attributes to a thing which he does not comprehend a name which he does not understand.” Tr E.S.Haldane and G.R.T.Ross The Philosophical Works of Descartes (2 vols Cambridge 1931, 34) II 158.

5123 29.242 first year of the compleated DEVOLUTION: Was the Devolution domestic? If Feb. 11 was the anniversary of some change, it has not been discovered. Mrs Coleridge and Sara had stayed with Coleridge and the Gillmans in Highgate for most of Jan 1823 and then with JTC in London.

Two days after this entry Coleridge wrote to Mrs C in Keswick, a letter franked 14 Feb 1824, to send him his Gassendi volumes (CL V 328) and to ask Sara to see “whether the Syntagma Philosophicum is the name of the work in the Gassendi Volumes that I have”. Neither Gillman nor Green, to judge from their sale catalogues, had Gassendi’s works. Vols I and II of both the Lyons 1658 and the Florence 1727 editions to which Coleridge refers, contain the Syntagma and are prefaced by a life and a eulogy by Samuel Sorbière. When in the last paragraph of the entry Coleridge refers to Sorbières Edition of Lyons 1652 (f106) he must have meant Opera omnia ed H.L.Habert de Montmor and F.Henri (6 vols Lyons 1658); the second edition, ed N.Averani, was in 6 vols Florence 1727.

f107^v my phosphorous mark: The episode described in the footnote is lost in obscurity, “Judge not, lest” (Matt 7:1). The Book Room many years ago must have been in Greta Hall; it was c Feb 1824 that his Book Room was arranged and he moved up to it on the top floor of No 3 The Grove; see below 5147 and n.

Cumberland’s unnatural Assault on Socrates: Richard Cumberland (see CN II 3131 [I], where a German distich is applied to him). In CN II 3131 n it is pointed out that Coleridge borrowed from the Bristol Library in May-June 1796 Vols I and V of Cumberland’s The Observer: Being a Collection of Moral, Literary and Familiar Essays (1786–90). The unnatural Assault on Socrates in No 76, 77 in Vol III (148–9, 158–63), and again in Vol V, No 140 (150–3) was on Socrates’ private life, not on his doctrines; Cumberland accused him of grossness and immoral sexual display, of crude relations with whores and young men, of drunkenness and debauchery publicly with his pupils, contending that his sole motive for collecting these unsavoury anecdotes was to defend Aristophanes in his attack on Socrates by showing that many contemporaries had worse tales to tell of him. See 5318 and n.

Spinoza: One of Coleridge’s best statements on Spinoza’s character is in Lect 13 P Lects (CC) ff627–629, another in BM Egerton MS 2801 ff 11–14: “Thoughts on Spinoza in the form of a Dialogue” (WM 1813) appearing in SWF.

f107 Locke’s…general triangles…see Berkley, Hume: John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Bk IV Chap 7 § 9 used as an example of a general idea and the difficulty of arriving at it “the general idea of a triangle”, arguing that “general ideas are fictions and contrivances of the mind” and “not the principles from which we deduce all other truth”. A.C.Fraser ed (Oxford 1894) 274–5. The point is discussed by Henry Lee in his Anti-Scepticism, or Notes upon each Chapter of Mr.Lock’s Essay concerning Humane Understanding (1702) 274; Coleridge’s copy of which is in VCL.

George Berkeley in his Introduction to his Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge caricatured Locke’s example, and although admitting general ideas, denied the existence of abstract general ideas, or that they are necessary either to knowledge or communication. Works ed Luce and Jessop (1948–53) II 33.

Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature Pt I Bk I § 7 also ridiculed Locke’s idea of an abstract triangle as “absurd in fact and reality” and therefore also “absurd in idea”. Selby- Bigge ed (Oxford 1888) 19 foll.

Gassendi: In Lect 12 P Lects (CC) f542 (15 March 1819) Coleridge put Gassendi in bad company, i.e. in the line of atomists from Democritus to Epicurus to Hobbes. Here he still puts him in the same bad company but has recognized Gassendi’s sincerity and his theistic departures from Epicureanism. See also 4715, 5125 and nn.

adapting and purifying the Epicurean Scheme: Cf the Liber proemialis to the Syntagma: Opera omnia (1658) I 29, 30:

I name no sect here, because I honour all, and follow now this, now that, if one seems to have some greater probability than the others. That alone is Orthodox which I received from our forebears, the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Religion to which alone I adhere: and for the rest I steadfastly place Reason before Authority…. It may seem that Epicurus is favoured, before the others, because when I tackled the task of purifying his ethics I seemed to grasp the possibility of explaining many more difficulties much more neatly from his position in physics as regards void and atoms, and from his position in ethics as regards pleasure than from the positions of other philosophers; but I do not on that account approve of all his placita, even of those that do not concern religion.

the four Systems: I.e. Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and Epicurean, as in 5080, with which and others Gassendi deals in his historical passages, sometimes showing an inclination to the Sceptics.

f107 There will remain of Locke’s whole philosophic plumage…: Echoing a phrase of Josiah Wedgwood on receiving Coleridge’s long letters in 1801 attacking Locke (CL II Letters Nos 381–4): “He seems to have plucked the principal feathers out of Locke’s wings”. (CL II 677n). See also C 17th C 67–109 esp for R.F.Brinkley’s useful references.

Spinoza’s…Principia Cartesiana more geometrico demonstrata: As Coleridge says, Spinoza’s first published work. In Op Max (MS) II ff 7^v, 28^v Coleridge refers to it as demonstrating Spinoza’s anticipation of Locke.

Gassendi Exercitationes Paradoxicæ…Syntagma Philosophiæ [philosophicum]: Of the first, Bk I was first published in 1624, Bk I and parts of Bk II in Opera omnia (1658) III 95–210. Bk I is an attack on the scholastic subservience to Aristotle, Bk II an attack on Aristotelian or “artificial” logic. Syntagma philosophicum was written during the last twenty years of Gassendi’s life and first published posthumously in Opera omnia (1658) I and II.

he openly and earnestly retracted…: Gassendi in the whole of the logical part of the Syntagma stressed the importance of logic, but in particular in Liber proemialis: Opera omnia I 29 he quoted Aristotle on the absurdity of looking for knowledge and the means of acquiring it at the same time, and pointed out that Plato’s προπαιδεία (Republic 536 D) demanded both mathematics and analysis in which lies the strength of logic. Gassendi summarized Aristotle’s contributions to logic in I 44–9.

f106^v προπαιδευτικον: See 5121 above.

Commentators on Daniel and the Apocalypse have been…Mathematicians: Like Newton, or William Hales (1747–1831). For Coleridge’s rejection of mathematical interpretations of the prophecies in these books, see e.g., 4615, 4912, 5287, 5329 and nn.

D^r Waring’s mathematico-theological work: Edward Waring, M.D., Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge, one of the leading mathematicians of his day, wrote “An Essay on the Principles of Human Knowledge” (privately printed Cambridge 1794) and might be said to have applied unsuitably mathematical principles of reasoning and evidence to e.g. the Eucharist (98) and prophecy (88–92).

latter and larger portion: I.e. Institutio logica: Opera omnia I 91–124.

Analytics & Topics of Aristotle: The former deals with what Gassendi calls bene colligere, i.e. the syllogism (I 106–20), the latter with Gassendi’s bene proponere, the proposition (I 99–106). On 24 Feb 1824 Coleridge wrote to G.Skinner of a “recent perusal of Aristotle’s Analytics & Topics with a superficial looking thro’ his Metaphysics…” CL V 341.

Gassendi’s Definition of Logic: Coleridge summarizes neatly Gassendi’s distinction between logic and ethics (Opera omnia 131), logic “to guide the intellect to follow the truth, the other to guide the will to follow the good”. Logic, he says, “that art of the intellect…is not itself occupied with things in which it seeks the truth, for that is the nature of physics, or natural science, but its function is to lay down rules by which the intellect may be guided in its study of the natural world. Although and because the rules of this kind are general they are able to serve the intellect not only for the knowledge of nature but for every cognitive process whatever”.

Logic…pure (abjuncta a rebus), “divorced from things”; Logic… applied (conjuncta cum rebus), “connected with things”. The distinction was attributed by Gassendi to the Greek commentators on Aristotle. Syntagma: Opera omnia I 67.

f106 tabula rasa: Gassendi states this hypothesis in Institutio logica: Opera omnia I 92 and improved on it in Syntagma: Opera omnia II 406. Cf CL II 680.

the two first Books…of Syntagma Philosophicum: The Latin phrases, which Coleridge translated, are given by Gassendi in the “Caput proemiale” to the Logic Opera omnia I 33–4, in Bk II De fine logicae Chap VI (I 87) and in the preface to Institutio logica (191) where he said likewise that logic can be divided into four sections, the titles of which Coleridge gives below, the titles of the four parts of the Institutio logica. Coleridge’s 1652 is a slip for 1658.

bene imaginari (right apperception): Coleridge’s translating of imaginatio as apperception (Leibnitz’s word) is not without Kantian overtones. Gassendi defines bene imaginari as the prior conceiving of a legitimate and true image of a thing, and having that image available whenever we think of a thing. Gassendi calls this simple imagination, because we form an image of the thing without making any statement about it. (Other words for imaginatio, he says he might equally well have used, are idea, species, notio, praenotio, anticipatio, phantasma). Imaginatio (used e.g. by Augustine) has had an ambiguous meaning ever since. Hence Coleridge’s desynonymizing in Chap XIII BL, into primary (Gassendi’s “simple”) and secondary was necessary and natural.

bene proponere…Urtheilen: As Coleridge translated it into both German and English. Gassendi defines it as to pronounce truly and legitimately about a thing, what it is and what it is not. The Latin has for Coleridge insufficient force to convey the aspect of the German Ur, “original/primal”, and Theile, “parts”, not only first in time but basic. See Ur-Theile in CN III 4228 and n, and Logic (CC) 78–9.

bene colligere: Gassendi defines as making a legitimate and true inference from a proposition.

bene ordinari: Gassendi defines as the disposition of the material in a legitimate and suitable order whenever it is expedient to “imagine” “propose” and “collect” several images, propositions, and syllogisms relating to one subject.

5124 29.243 The argument adduced by Barrow is in Sermon VIII “The Being Of God Proved from Universal Consent” in Twenty-six Sermons on the Creed: Isaac Barrow Theological Works (6 vols 1818) IV 184–5.

The argument (to be short) is that (as Lactantius speaks) universal and unanimous testimony of people and nations through all course of time, who (otherwise differing in language, custom, and conceit) only have agreed in this one matter of opinion.

5125 29.244 the System introduced by Gassendi: I.e. as above in 5123 f107^v.

Ficta-Rationalia: “fictitious or pseudo-Rationals”.

Enthusiasm and Mysticism: Cf Coleridge’s discussion in 4931 and n. (This to be recomposed): For the Logic or the Opus Maximum or the

“Assertion of Religion” 4744, 5210nn, works never completed.

5126 29.245 The two Extremes…: See e.g. CN I 1725; also 4949 above and 4931 below.

f105 Cicero’s Letters: A good example of self-validating documents, considered the most reliable source of information on his times.

The Fathers…who speak loudest of Tradition: Coleridge may have been alluding here to wide reading on this subject—e.g. Daniel Waterland “The Use and Value of Ecclesiastical Antiquity”: The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Asserted (1734) 376–83, who pointed out the stress laid by Tertullian and Irenaeus on tradition in their dealing with heretics; or perhaps more likely Jeremy Taylor “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation” and “Of Traditions”: Polemical Discourses (1674). See below 5140 and n. At 410–36 Taylor cited Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Augustine as declaring that the doctrines essential to salvation are plain in Scripture but that the specific implementations of them are “universal traditions”. In his “Liberty of Prophesying—Of the Insufficiency and Uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture, or Determine Questions” (ibid 976–84) Taylor elaborated the same point, with illustrations from Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Augustine. Coleridge’s specific reading in the Fathers is uncertain; cf 5228 and n.

δοξα: “opinion”.

Marcionites: See CN III 3968 and 4626. The Marcionites rejected the OT, accepted only Marcion’s gospel and the Pauline epistles of the NT.

Prince of the Air: See above 5076n.

f104^v against all Tradition the Cup was taken from the Laity…: Jeremy Taylor in the Preface to Pt I § vi of “A Dissuasive from Popery”: Polemical Discourses (1674) 302–3, described the taking away of the cup from the laity as “Half-communion” (i.e. bread, but not wine) and as having no basis in either Scripture or tradition; ibid § xiii (339): “they take one half of the principal away from the Laity, and they institute little sacraments of their own”. See also Pt II Bk I § viii.

Purgatory proved by Visions &c: Richard Field Of the Church (1635) 336–7 wrote of visions of purgatory reported by Bede and later writers; and Jeremy Taylor “Of Purgatory”: Polemical Discourses 509–10 de-scribed strange stories told in the time of Augustine by persons reportedly returning after death and describing Purgatory.

f104 protestants (chiefly Oxford Doctors & Laudites)…admit…use of Tradition: See 5202 and n below.

S^t John…the VI Chapter. John 6:48–58; see 4626 above and 5161 below.

universal practice to the contrary, including St John’s own Churches: John was traditionally the bp of Ephesus; Daniel Waterland Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist (1737) 214–46 considered the evidence that the Eucharist was universal in the Christian churches, including Ephesus, and was believed in as more than a mere commemoration; see 5161 below.

Presbyterian & Episcopalian Controversy: See again 5202 and n below.

5127 29.246 The last phrase, “Gold the essence”, was added in pencil; cf above 4988 f43.

Was the dialogue to be with Berkeley, or after his style? In The Principles of Human Knowledge: Works ed Luce and Jessop II 75, 256, Berkeley referred to the scholastic term, quidditas.

Or was the dialogue to be between the thin twisted roll of tobacco (that Lamb probably carried in his pocket) and the Guineas there? But there may have been intentions for the Logic. “…a thing in all languages is that which is contained in the answer to the quale and the quantum. And it is to the perception of the contradiction implied in the extension of the enquiry beyond the quale and the quantum that has occasioned the third interrogative term, quid, under the name ‘quiddity’ to mean anything at once subtle and senseless”: Logic (CC) 115. Some pages later Coleridge referred to gold. “Gold is a yellow metal…my knowledge of the predicate ‘a yellow metal’ pre-existed and was contained in my knowledge of the subject gold”. Ibid 179.

5128 29.247 all the demonstrative proofs of a God either prove too little…or too much: See 4785, 5114, 5124, and 5129 and nn.

f103 a grain of sand sufficing and a Universe at hand to echo the decision: Cf Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence”, line I.

5129 29.248 Ex. magnet: See a similar use of this example in 4940 ff100^v–101 and n.

the confusion, into which Kant himself has fallen…Limit by Negation …Limit by Position: Coleridge possibly had several passages from Kant in mind here. In the KrV II iii § 2 Kant asserted that negations signify a mere want, that all true negations are nothing but limitations of a total reality. He discussed the application of this concept to the reality of the primordial being. He also made a distinction between logical negation, (i.e. not a concept but its relation to another concept), and transcendental negation (i.e. not-being in and of itself). In the Appendix to the Transcendental Analytic he introduced the notion of “transcendental location”, as distinct from logical location or the categories of the understanding, referring to the place which belongs to a concept in relation to the cognitive faculty employed, and argued that Leibnitz’s main error was to ignore the “transcendental location” of concepts and to fail to perceive the position of concepts in intuition. In his “Beschluss von der Grenzbestimmung der reinen Vernunft” in Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können (Riga 1783) Kant pointed out that in the sciences, which deal with phenomena, human reason recognizes limits but not bounds, while in conceiving of God, the mind recognizes bounds but not limits. For Coleridge’s reading of this work see Logic (CC) 161–2 and nn et seq. He objected to Kant’s introduction of negative quantities into metaphysical inquiries as employed by mathematicians, in the essay “Versuch, den Begriff der negativen Grössen in die Weltweisheit einzuführen”: Kant VS I 611–76. This essay was not annotated by Coleridge in his copy (BM C 126.e.7), but see Chap XIII BL (CC) I 298–9. There are notes on other essays, and on the end-papers. For Coleridge himself on negative quantities, see Logic (CC) 179, 257.

a non possibile, non: I.e. the argument that from the impossibility of a thing its nonexistence can be deduced.

essential posteriority of Reason: I.e. in the sense of basic Ideas that lie behind their phenomenalizations into forms. f102 causa sufficiens: “sufficing cause”.

Cum sit Circulus…tantarum Proprietatum: “Since it is a circle, it possesses, by its own necessity, so many and such Properties.”

5130 29.249 The last two paragraphs are in AP 261–2.

The date 20 Feb 1824 was inserted at the top of the page (f101^v), an afterthought, possibly because another date, 23 March 1822 was already there; see 4878 and n. The ink of the 1824 date looks the same as in this entry, to which it apparently belongs.

Aristotle can give no definition of Philosophy, <as> distinguish’d from Science: Tennemann III 42 makes explicitly this point about the character of Aristotle’s thought (quoting Aristotle’s Physics II c. 3 [194 b.16] in a footnote), but Coleridge took his Greek phrases here from the Aristotle passage and translated or paraphrased them.

The passage from the Physics reads:

Knowledge is the object of our enquiry, and men do not think that they know a thing till they have grasped the “why” of it which is to grasp its primary cause ”.

Tr R.P.Hardie and R.K.Gaye: The Whole Works of Aristotle. Tr under the editorship of W.D.Ross (Oxford 1929-).

With Plato…IDEAS…essential (or constitutive): Cf SM App E: “Whether Ideas are regulative only, according to Aristotle and Kant; or likewise CONSTITUTIVE, and one with the power and Life of Nature, according to Plato, and Plotinus…is the highest problem of Philosophy, and not part of its nomenclature”. SM:LS (CC) 114.

Tenneman’s 50 times repeated Assertion, that Plato attributed only a regulative function to the Ideas: In a marginal note on his copy of Tennemann (in 26) Coleridge complained against Tennemann’s interpretation of Plato’s Ideas: “Here the sturdy Kantean comes in play. That Aristotle did not, and as a mere tho’ most eminent Philologist, could not behold the Ideas of the divine Philosopher, is most true; but that he should so grossly misunderstand his words as to have persisted in taking as constitutive what Plato had taught as only regulative—this is less than impossible. Would not the other Scholars of Plato have exclaimed against such a perversion?” Coleridge frequently charges Tennemann with not understanding what an Idea is.

The first man of Science: See the next two entries and nn.

Knowing and Being: Cf above 4713 and n. Parallels for the statement here are legion in Coleridge’s work, the warp and woof of his thinking; see a collection of pertinent ones in SM:LS (CC) 78 and n.

I am in that I am: See above 4523, 4671, 4784 and nn.

5131 29.251 Used var in AR 228, the three paragraphs are based on Aristotle Metaphysics 982 b, Plato Theaetetus 155 D. Cf also The Friend (CC) I 519 and n: “In wonder says Aristotle, does philosophy begin: and in astoundment says Plato, does all true philosophy finish”.

See 5132 and n.

5132 29.252 Coleridge is translating Tennemann III 44, which gives the passage from Aristotle’s Metaphysics I 2 (982 b) and the reference to Plato’s Theaetetus p 76 (155 D), together as here. The Aristotle passage as quoted in Tennemann’s footnote reads: “It is through wonder that men now begin and originally began to philosophize… Therefore if it was to escape ignorance that men studied philosophy, it is obvious that they pursued science for the sake of knowledge and not for the sake of any practical utility”. Aristotle Metaphysics tr Hugh Tredennick (LCL 1933).

Philology or Philepistasy: The first here means “love of learning”; the second, not in OED, is Coleridge’s coinage for “love of science”; cf 5080 and n.

nor the Love of Wisdom, for not the Love of Wisdom?

5133 29.253 Nothwendig ist aber nur das Allgemeine: “But only the Universal is necessary”, as Coleridge quotes and translates from Tennemann III 45.

Tennemann then quoted Aristotle Posterior Analytics I 4 [he gives it as I.c.2 c.4.]. Although Coleridge picked out only the last sentence of Tennemann’s quotation, it seems clarifying to give the whole extract:

Since the object of scientific knowledge in the absolute sense cannot be other than it is, the notion reached by demonstrative knowledge will be necessarily true. Now knowledge is demonstrative when we possess it in virtue of having a demonstration; therefore the premisses from which demonstration is inferred are necessarily true…. By a universal attribute I mean one which belongs as “predicated of all” to its subject, and belongs to that subject per se and qua itself. Thus it is evident that all universal attributes belong to their subjects of necessity.

Aristotle Posterior Analytics 73 a 20, 73 b, tr H.Tredennick (LCL 1960).

i.e. it is evident then…: Coleridge’s misinterpretation was fostered by his longstanding error in thinking that the invariable adverbial phrase or(“universally”) was a regularly inflected adjective. Cf e.g. his annotation on Beaumont and Fletcher: CM I (Copy A) I 432.

merely a logical position, a canon of discursive Thinking: The distinction between the discursive and the intuitive thought (God, for instance) is common enough and recurrent in Coleridge, but the context of this entry is a reminder that Kant makes it in the introduction to his Logik (Kön-igsberg 1800) 45, where he says that all knowledge is either by Anschauungen or Begriffe. See 4923 and n.

to begin indeed with the definition: From here to the end of the paragraph Coleridge is quoting (in translation) and expanding Tennemann III 44: “Demonstration ist ein Schluss aus wahren Prämissen, die nichts anderes voraussetzen”. Tennemann was translating Aristotle Posterior Analytics I 2 (71 b 20) and quoted it in fn 6. (Coleridge gives the Greek below in f100).

ex hypothesi, or a concessis, or a monstratis: “from an hypothesis”, or “from conceded premisses,” or “from premisses shown [by the evidence of the senses] to be true”. Cf Logic (CC) 200, 202 where Coleridge makes this distinction between monstratio “a showing from nothing” and demonstratio as “apodictic”.

f100^v the term, universal: Was Coleridge here influenced by Occam? See below f99^v. Cf The Friend (CC) I 156, where the Universal is said to be apprehended by the Reason, formal logic by the Understanding.

f100 και γαρ αισθανεται…: Tennemann III 46 fn 12 quoted Aristotle Posterior Analytics II 19 “…because, although it is the particular that we perceive, the act of perception involves the universal…” tr (100 a 15) as above.

αρχαι: “beginnings”, “principles”, “elements”, “rules (in the sense of governments), rulers”. Coleridge in a marginal note on Tennemann III 45 criticises a similar equivocation in Tennemann’s use of Principien. Aristotle himself at the beginning of Metaphysics V gave seven meanings of αρχαι.

αναγκη γαρ και την αποδεικτκην…σvμπερασματος: Tennemann III 45 (fn 6, continued from 44) quoting Posterior Analytics I 2; “for” (γαρ) was added by Coleridge: “[For] demonstrative knowledge must proceed from premisses which are true, primary, immediate, [Coleridge interposed: sometimes only Admitted Facts] better known than, prior to, and causative of the conclusion.” Tr ibid (71 b 20).

Διο τας μεν αρχας…παραδουναι: Tennemann I 46 fn, giving the reference Analyt. prior I c 30, and again on I 53, “Hence to convey to us the principles connected with each particular science is the task of experience”. Tr Hugh Tredennick: Aristotle The Organon I 46 a 15 (LCL 1938).

mistaken Dogma, that Experience is the source of all Knowlege: Similar to Tennemann III 47–8.

Veritas eterna: “eternal verity”.

f99^v In my Elements of Discourse…: None of these topics is dealt with in the Logic (CC).

: “of preparatory instruction”— see above 5121, 5123; Tennemann used the words Propädeutik and propadeutisch (III 33, 40).

and yet no where has Aristotle given a distinct…explanation: Agreeing with Tennemann III 47–8.

Def. realis υerbalis: “a real as opposed to a verbal definition”.

Aristotle’s Passion of detracting from his great Master…: In a long fly-leaf note Coleridge attacked Tennemann at this point (III 26–8). While agreeing that “Plato saw early in Aristotle’s mind an unfitness for certain more spiritual parts of his system”,

Coleridge said Tennemann “unjustly charges the Stagyrite with misrepresentation [e.g. III 27–8], or rather with a direct falsification of Plato’s Doctrine”. Coleridge reminded himself to refer to this marginal note in his notes for Lect 5 P Lects (CC), and the debate with Tennemann underlies ff188–194. Apparently he revised his views somewhat between 1819 and 1824 (if this entry is correctly dated). It may or may not be significant that the only dates written in the Tennemann marginalia are 1822, 14 Feb 1824, and 8 Oct 1827, on Vols n, VII, and VIII, respectively.

f99 Innate Ideas…Locke: An old whipping-boy of Coleridge’s in various places. See e.g. the attack on Locke and Hume in Lect 13 P Lects (CC) ff607–628.

hence the Realism of the Schools: Noticed in Lect 9 P Lects (CC) ff379–424 and nn 39, 40 where long notes on Duns Scotus and Occam are quoted, mainly from the Tennemann marginalia. See also CN III 3628.

nihil in intellectu…: “nothing in the mind which was not previously in the sense”, the scholastic rendering of Aristotle’s position as discussed in this entry. In Chap IX BL (CC) I 141 the words are used with the often-quoted addition by Leibnitz, “praeter ipsum intellectum—except the mind itself”. See also SM:LS (CC) 67 and n.

Salto Mortale: “somersault”.

Catholon: for Cathoticon? “Universal”; cf f101 n above.

f98^v “perishables and imperishables”.

the fiction of Species (vide Occam): As discussed by Tennemann VIII ii 840–90; see 5088. Quoting liberally from In primum librum sententiarum, Tennemann describes Occam’s fifteen questions, the final one arguing that every universal is unique, individual, a species, but that also “universals have no real existence either in or outside the soul as subject (esse subjectivum), but a reality in the soul as object (esse objectivum), namely as a ‘Gebilde’ (fictum) in the soul”. Ibid 859.

the Schoolmen before D[uns] Scotus: I.e. before c 1274–1308; of these Coleridge’s favourites were Scotus Erigena and Thomas Aquinas.

Tης Oυσιας ĸαι του τι εστιν αποδειξις: The passage from Aristotle’s Metaphysics XI 7 (without Coleridge’s idiosyncratic iota subscript in της) is quoted in Tennemann III 60 n 31: “there is no demonstration of the reality or the essence” (1064 a).

λαμβανουσι…υποτιθεμεναι: Ibid. “Some arrive at the essence through sense perception, and some by hypothesis”.

he afterwards gives…a Demonstration of a Necessary Being: Tennemann III 60, enlarged upon at III 240–41, quoting Metaphysics XII 6.

εμπειριας αισθησεως: “of experience through sensation”. Coleridge appears to be translating his English phrase into Greek.

the Thing Acting…sentient Subject: Coleridge is here translating from Tennemann’s III 60 fn 32, where Tennemann quotes Aristotle Metaphysics V 5 (really IV 5), which suggested the following Greek words:

τι κινουν: “something that moves”.

τι κινουμενον: “something moved”.

κινονμενων: “of things being moved”.

τι πασχον: As Coleridge translates it, “something passive”.

res percepta: “object perceived”.

τι ποιουν: “something that acts”.

The whole passage as quoted by Tennemann and commented on here reads:

That there would be neither sensible qualities nor sensations is probably true (for these depend upon an effect produced in the percipient), but that the substrates which cause the sensation should not exist even apart from the sensation is impossible. For sensation is not of itself, but there is something else too besides the sensation, which must be prior to the sensation; because that which moves is by nature prior to that which is moved.

Tr Tredennick 1010 b 30.

f97^v There is one passage…: Tennemann III 61 quotes from De Memoria c I:

As has been said before in my treatise On the Soul about imagination (περιit is impossible even to think without a mental picture (αvευ). The same process occurs in thinking as in drawing a diagram; for in this case we make no use of the fact that the magnitude (τo ποσον) of a triangle is a finite quantity, yet we draw it as having a finite magnitude. In the same way the man who is thinking, though he may not be thinking of a finite magnitude, still puts a finite magnitude before his eyes, though he does not think of it as such. And even if its nature is that of a magnitude, but an unlimited one, he still puts before him a finite magnitude, but thinks of it as a magnitude without limit. The reason why it is impossible to think of anything without continuity, or to think of things which have no time except in terms of time, is another question [449 b 30].

Tr W.S.Hett, Aristotle On the Soul, Parυa naturalia, On Breath (LCL 1935).

Abstraction: A developing interest in this subject appears in the 1820’s in CN: e.g. see 4657 and n; also Lect 5 P Lects (CC) n 30.

f97“theory of imperishables”.

A[ristotle] never thoroughly understood…Ideas: See above f99^v and n. pre-existing Moulds: Cf 4746 and n.

pro-pæde[u]tic: Cf above προπαιδειας (f99^v) and other references there.

f96^v Aristotle’s a philosophy…E contra, Plato: The entry at this point throws some fresh light on Coleridge’s use of Goethe’s famous comparison; cf Lect 5 P Lects (CC) ff 194–222, also Lect 2 n 58.

συνταξις: “arrangement of words”; cf 4771, 5148 and nn, and the reference there to the Logic (CC) 23, 163–4, 254.

the Mind as a Kaleidoscope rather than as a Filter: Coleridge’s meaning here is clarified somewhat by his use of the metaphor in a fly-leaf note on Tennemann III: “One consequence of Aristotle’s Filter vice Kaleidoscope System is to be seen in his definitions of Nature, which he every where poorly takes as the Antithesis to Art, i.e. human Art”. “Dr Brews-ter’s Patent Kaleidoscope” was the subject of an article in Annals of Philosophy XI (1818) 451–2, where his originality was defended. The new invention (enjoyed in the Wordsworth circles—SH Letters 140, 142, 144) provided Coleridge with several illustrations; see Logic (CC) 134 and n.

5134 29.254 Mr Abercromby’s motion on the State of the Representation of Edinburgh, 26 Feb 1824, began with a re-reading of a petition presented to the House “last year”, signed by some seven thousand persons; it demanded “an Inquiry into the state of the Representation of Edinburgh”. His speech took nine and a half columns of Hansard, Mr Wortley’s reply for the Opposition six columns: Hansard X (FebMar 1824) cols 455–86.

It is not certainly known which newspaper report Coleridge was reading on 28 Feb 1824; the Courier account was too brief (27 Feb), the M Chron and The Times gave fuller accounts on which his remarks—if not all his conclusions—could be based. In arguing for the Ref[orm] in its Repr[esentation], Abercromby enlarged on the high level of intelligence of the people of Edinburgh who had no direct representation in Westminster or even in their own town council in Edinburgh—a self-perpetuating body, nominally of thirty-three persons but actually of nineteen. Abercrombie’s speech was weakish in its undue length and undue detail, especially as he had these formidable facts to support his case; as Coleridge noted, he did not always direct himself to the basic question of true representation. James Abercromby (1776–1858) was M.P. for Calne later; until 1832 Edinburgh had no direct elections for M.P.’s at Westminster. Then to the first reformed Parliament Abercromby and Francis were elected.

Mr Wortley (James Archibald Stuart-Wortley-Mackenzie, 1778–1845, a Yorkshire M.P. at this time) was an opponent of reform in search of a compromise, a supporter of Canning. Canning did not speak in this debate of 26 Feb 1824, but Mr Wortley’s arguments from expediency followed Canning’s well-known line, e.g. in the spring of 1822 when he spoke against Lord John Russell’s motion for reform (and see 4700 and n). Wortley argued, “If Edinburgh was not properly supplied with electors, having only thirty-three, what must be the state of Glasgow, which has not a quarter of those votes? Why should they stop at the representation of Scotland?” He went on to cite London and Westminster as returning representatives “to the exclusion of a large majority of those who reside within the two cities”. Instead of deducing that the only trouble with James Abercromby’s motion was that it did not go far enough, the consequent for Stuart Wortley was that the evil of reform might spread from it.

consequentness: The OED describes as “obs. rare”.

Old Sarums: Old Sarum was originally an iron-age hill fort, later in the thirteenth century a town, which became depopulated with the growth of the New Sarum, Salisbury. Old Sarum was the most notorious of many “rotten boroughs”.

“for the sake of which”.

a Major Maximus: A maxim used as a major premise.

old Sarum Quinces: An Apple Pie made of old Sarum quinces, i.e. rotten and bitter, acrid?

Abercrombie’s…reply worse than weak: At this point it becomes arguable that Coleridge was probably reading the report in The Times for 27 Feb, which somewhat distorted Abercromby’s reply. It reads in part:

…Who led in every great question? Was it the house or the country? (Hear.) Did the hon. gent. (Mr. S.Wortley) think he did not know the use he meant to make of this admission? As far as his (Mr. Abercromby’s) Experience went, the people had decided on all main questions; but it was owing to that progress in education to which he had before alluded, and which would teach them that they had at length, and after the efforts of many years, obtained only that to which they were justly entitled.

Cf Hansard:

But, let me ask who leads in every great question, this House, or the country? I will limit myself to the period during which I have been a member, and I say with the greatest confidence, that as on all questions in which any thing has been gained to the public by the decision, the country has led the House, and not the House the country [hear! from Mr. S.Wortley]. Does the hon. member for Yorkshire imagine that I do not know the use he is prepared to make of what I have just said? I was aware of the manner in which it would be applied by him, and I repeat, that whenever any thing beneficial has been at last dragged from this reluctant House, it has been accomplished by the exertion of the voice of the people, raised so loudly and so widely, that no man even dared to be deaf to it [hear!]. But does it follow, that because the concession has been extorted after a series of years, that it might not have been obtained much sooner, had the nation possessed a due share in the representation. Had we not possessed a free press, and had not education made such rapid strides, the members of this House, fenced in by privileges, protected by power, and screened by corruption, would still have rejected the claim which they did not longer dare to deny.

Although Coleridge’s primary interest here seems to be in the bad logic of parliamentarians, one cannot fail to see at this time a positive attitude towards parliamentary reform; (but see also 4700 and n).

Court of Chancery: See also 4959n. The Times of 14 Feb 1823 reported a meeting at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, Strand, to discuss the reform of The Court of Chancery. Upwards of 250 persons attended. The same day most of a column was devoted to piracy, the subject of the leading article 14 Mar. Both subjects were much under public discussion Feb–Mar 1823.

f95 This applied to Lawrence & Piracy: William Beach Lawrence (1800–81) was a young American jurist who at this time, having studied in Europe 1821–3, was soon to become (1826) Secretary of the American legation in London. His Visitation and Search; or an historical sketch of the British claim to exercise a marine police over the υessels of all nations, in peace as well as in war…(Boston 1858), though written so much later, indicates his interest in the subject of piracy and the legal problem in 1823–4. By 1822–3 British public opinion had been pressing for universal abolition of the slave trade and for American agreement to a mutual right of search. This was refused, but by a compromise the slave trade was declared piracy by the law of nations and offenders were to be handed over to their own courts (Visitation and Search 28–9). Whatever part if any Lawrence played in these negotiations, he described the efforts of the United States to force the British government into this Convention (13 Mar 1824) and may have made some statement in public or private. Possibly Coleridge’s knowledge of the topic owed something to another rising young jurist, his nephew John Taylor Coleridge, and his friends.

Bentham on the Law Taxes & on Paley’s Defence of the present System: Bentham’s main attack on the excessive costs of litigation, A Protest against Law Taxes, shewing the peculiar mischievousness of all such impositions as add to the expense of Appeal to Justice (1796) was appended to the two editions of Letters in Defence of Usury (1816) and (1818), in one of which Coleridge probably read it. In spite of theoretical objections to Bentham’s general position, Coleridge was sympathetic to many of Ben-tham’s specific stands, as here, where Bentham attacked legal costs as “the worst of all taxes”, at most “a denial of justice” and at least “a tax on distress”, i.e. he argued on the basic principles of the social purpose of law. He also lashed at “Law Maxims”, showing the irony of such phrases as “the protection of the law”, and of such arguments as expense being “a check to litigation”.

Another work in which Bentham used his gift for epigram to attack Law Maxims, and which because of its date of publication may be fresh in Coleridge’s mind here, is his pamphlet Truth versus Ashurst, in which he slashed hard at such Tory platitudes as Ashurst’s “No man is so low as not to be within the law’s protection”, and at “a court called a court of equity”, and at “Every man has the means of knowing all the laws he is bound by”. Jeremy Bentham The Works ed John Bowring (II vols 1962) V 233–7.

Bentham on Paley’s Defence of the present System has eluded search, even by eminent editors of Bentham. Is it possible that Coleridge was thinking of Adam Smith’s defence of the laws against usury, discussed by Bentham in the volume referred to above? Letter XIII of the Defence of Usury was addressed to Adam Smith opposing his support of the laws making excessive interest illegal, whereas Bentham argued that restraint on borrowing had been an obstacle to many creative policies and projects, and that the natural controls of business prudence were sufficient.

Coleridge did frequently think of Adam Smith and Paley as tarred with the same brush, the substitution of expediency for principles.

Exercitationes Logicæ: “Exercises in Logic”. See 5132 and n above; and thinking of his Elements of Discourse (5133), the Logic on which he was apparently still working in 1824? See 5123 and n. This paragraph may be a separate entry, but the hand resembles closely what goes before on the page. In 5137, the entry that follows in the notebook, written at another time or with a different pen, he moves into syllogistic logic.

5135 26.97 Dated 23 Mar 1824, fifteen folios of notes were addressed to James Gillman, as “Maxims to be kept in mind my dear James Gillman! if you would distinguish yourself as a superior Greek Scholar”.

5136 26.98 A continuation of the maxims of 5135 for James Gillman.

Euripides Orestes: Line numbers in the entry identify the edition Coleridge was here using as Euripidis quae extant omnia ed and tr Joshua Barnes (3 vols Leipzig 1778–88). The work is No 471 in Gillman SC but not listed as being Coleridge’s. For another edition he owned, see CN III 4081, 4189 and nn.

The paragraphs on the General Character of Euripides follow the main lines of criticism from Aristophanes to A.W.Schlegel, but no one source is apparent.

f135^v As Coleridge has it, “a stoning of stones”; more literally “a rocky stoning”; cf Lev 20:2, 27 etc.

once before: I.e. in line 50.

τωυ σων δε γονατων s…: Suppliant, I touch your knees as my first act, letting fall prayers from leafless mouth”; the ancient scholia, quoted in Barnes’s edition, interpret this to mean that Orestes’ supplications are made without the correct accompaniment of olive branches.

Hebraism. Calves of the Lips—: Cf AV translation of Hosea 14:2 where “calves” has been explained as meaning “sacrifices”; but many critics have preferred a slight emendation of the Hebrew to mean “fruit of the lips”, as in Isa 57:19, which Coleridge renders Blossoms of the Mouth, with an echo of Heb 13:15, “the fruit of our lips”.

with the shaving of Lamentation: Coleridge again translates the Greek; more literally it means “shaven with mournful haircut, for his daughter”. Cf Job 1:20 for the Hebrew custom of shaving the head as a sign of lamentation.

εξαμιλλωνται σε As Coleridge translates it, “hustle you out of the country”, to convey the root meaning, eager rivalry.

Never content yourself with the general meaning of a word: On the importance of the primary visual image cf e.g. CN III 3780 and in CM I a note on Baxter Reliquiae Baxterianae (Copy B) iii 37–8.

f135 Words given in the Lexicons: The standard school dictionary was still that taken by Henry Gillman to Eton (CL V 491), Cornelius Schrevelius Lexicon manuale graecolatinum et latino-graecum (Ist ed Leyden 1654), which went to many revised editions. It was based on Joannes Scapula Lexicon graeco-latinum (CN III 3780n). The first Greek- English Lexicon was John Jones’s A Greek and English Lexicon (1823), the Introduction to which (vii) expressed much the same views on the exact equivalence of words but he did not apply the principle in the body of his work.

f134^v Λαμυρος…terribilis…: See CN III 3780 and n, noting in addition that Coleridge’s application of the word to a Harlot is perhaps from a misunderstanding of Scapula’s quotation of Plutarch’s use of it in Against Colotes (1124 B) in a phrase meaning “bait for wanton and flighty young men”.

f133^v the history of a word: Cf e.g. AR 6 n.

The preceding Pages: I.e. 5135, i.e. ff151^v–136^v in this N 26 notes towards a Greek grammar appearing in SWF.

finger-quirling: OED gives quirl as a variant of querl and cites its first use as 1880.

f133 Alas […] this is but saying: A word has been scratched off the page, perhaps the name [James’] . Mrs. Gillman put crosses before itself and Alas and wrote at the bottom of the page,“is it not yourself”.

5137 29.255 Entries in this part of N29 show close links with the Logic—a rewriting of it c Feb—May 1824?

Causa Sciendi: “Cause of Knowing”.

Causa Essendi: “Cause of Being”. See above 5110 for both phrases.

The underlining of the prefixes in and Con is associated with an old and favourite theme; see CN III 4228, 4230, and a comment on Jacobi: CM II Jacobi Werke in 107. The same point about the essential logical canon, and in similar wording somewhat expanded, appears in Logic (CC) 64.

Though the subject is syllogistic logic, the example reflects the sort of discussion in 4640 and 4652.

5138 29.256 In pencil.

Sensibility: See below 5171, and esp 5189 below; also 5168 and n.

5139 29.257 Aristotle says: Cf 5130 above. Tennemann III 94 n 37 quoted Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics III I on this subject: “There are four kinds of question that we ask…the question of fact, the question of reason or cause, the question of existence, and the question of essence”. Tr H.Tredennick (LCL 1960). More literally, Aristotle’s four questions may be read, “the that”, “the why”, “whether it is”, “what it is”.

It must also be noted that in a letter of 24 Feb 1824 Coleridge referred to “a recent perusal of Aristotle’s Analytics & Topics with a superficial looking through his Metaphysics”. CL V 341.

The possible ambiguity of of which means, as a conjunction, “that” or “because”, and as the neuter indefinite relative and interrogative pronoun, “whatever” (usually written ó τι), engaged Coleridge more than once. See CM I under Thomas Browne Pseudodoxia (1658) Pt I 25 (§ 13).

Coleridge’s suggested Greek emendation in his footnote—“we ask four questions what? why? whether [it] is? what is?– is no improvement; in his reading the first and fourth questions seem to be identical.

“what its properties are” would not be but, unambiguously “ποīov ”.

Aristotle in this much debated passage, as Tennemann makes plain, is referring to two kinds of facts; the first two questions relate to events, like eclipses of the sun, the third and fourth to the reality of entities like “God”.

5140 29.258 MSS Notes in Jer[emy] Tayl[or].—Liturgy—P. 2: Coleridge’s copy of Taylor’s Συμβολον Θεολογικον: Or a Collection of Polemicall Discourses (1674) is full of his MSS Notes. The first work in the folio volume is An Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy in which Taylor discusses historically (2) the liturgical changes of attitude towards fixed and written prayers; Coleridge's annotation on 2–3 reads in part: “P.S—It seems to me, I confess, that the controversy could never have risen to the height, it did, if all the parties had not thrown <too far> into the background the distinction in nature and object, between the three equally necessary species of Worship—Public, Family, and Private (or solitary) Devotion.” The remainder of this long note will be found in CM under Jeremy Taylor Polemicall Discourses § 15. Cf 5360, 5411. Prayer was very early a subject of concern for Coleridge; for another reference to three sorts, differently described but essentially the same, see CN I 750 and n.

P. 4. On the over-rating . . . the dogma of Inspiration: This provoked a long annotation, in substance an attack on the Grotian divines, literalism of the rationalizing sort, and Unitarianism, i.e. the too great emphasis on literal Inspiration gave rise to extreme apologists and defenders on rational grounds—a typical and powerful Coleridgian attack on both extremes.

In p. 7: Again Coleridge wrote a long note on the subject of Inspiration on 7, 8–14, attacking Taylor’s interpretation of writing “by the Spirit”. Coleridge objects, “what would it avail unless the Interpreters & Translators, not to speak of the Copyists in the first & second Centuries, were likewise assisted by inspiration? As to the larger part of the prophetic Books, and the whole of the Apocalypse, we must receive them as inspired Truths, or reject them as inventions or enthusiastic delusions. But in what other Book of Scripture does the Writer assign his own work to a miraculous dictation or infusion? Surely the contrary is implied in the Luke’s Preface”. The note goes on in a vein that enlarges on the final sentence here: “But in all superstition there is a heart of Unbelief; and vice versa, where an Individuals Belief is but a superficial inquiescence, credulity is the natural result and accompaniment…. It is not the profession of Socinian Sects, but the Spirit of Socinianism in the Church itself that alarms me. This, this, is the Dry Rot—in the beams and timbers of the Temple!—”

the Grotian Scheme: See CN II 2640n and above 4924, 4985 and nn.

Saliva mortificans Mercurium Evangelieum Fidei Eυangelicæ: “Saliva mortifying the Evangelic Mercury of the Evangelic Faith”—a play on Mercury as a salivainducing medicine and Mercury as the messenger god, and on the Greek word angelos for “messenger”. See 4854 f53, also 5206 below. Coleridge emphasizes the deadening influence of Grotianism by describing it as not only curing the ills of religious faith (by relieving it of the materia morbi as mercury did for the body), but killing faith by attacking or neutralizing by extreme literalism the healer itself, the Holy Spirit.

5141 29.259 The entry except for the last word, which is in ink, is in pencil at the top of the page, rather badly written and now faint. The word begun and cancelled was perhaps “permutation” or “permanence”. See 4662 f28^v.

Infusoria: See 4984 and n; Steffens’s theory of an Ur-Schleim probably lies behind Coleridge’s interest, as perhaps also Goldfuss’s Zoologie (4758, 5171 and nn) where infusoria are classified as the First Order in his First Class of animal life.

Spiders transitional: Goldfuss discussed various families of spiders (I 212–21) as belonging to the 5th Class of insects, 3rd Order, 3rd family, but he did not suggest that they had a transitional position in any scale.

Spinoza cogent versus Understand—o versus ideas: (The “o” is oddly drawn, certainly not a capital O.) I.e. Spinoza’s arguments effectively attack the knowledge of the sort acquired by the mere Understanding, contingent on space and time (5133), but are worth nil against Ideas, which are exclusive of space and time? In fact 5133 above has considerable relevance here. See also 4662, 4671 and nn above.

Type: I.e. in the theological sense. Prefiguration? See 4984 f87^v and n.

5142 29.260 Genius…Pseudo-genius…Talent: The old genius-talent distinction has developed in subtlety. Cf CN I 669; also The Friend (CC) I 110, 415, 419–21 (where Genius is defined as “originality in intellectual construction” and “Cleverness” seems to resemble Pseudogenius); also Chap IV BL (CC) I 81–2 and Chap XI at I 224. True Genius, like that of the distinguished and original physiologist John Hunter, Coleridge saw as dynamic, essentially generatiυe of further advances, as time proved it to be; see CN III 4357n, The Friend I (CC) 473–5 and esp I 493–4; also TL 17–18. John Brown’s over-simplified views, based on hypotheses about the responses of the nervous system to external stimulants and depressants, were always anathema to Coleridge, who must have discussed Brown’s work with Beddoes and with Blumenbach; see CN I 388, 389, 904 and nn.

On the creative antithesis and conjunction (war-embrace) of Light× Darkness, see CN III 4418 f14; and in this volume 4659, 4843 f117^v, 5249 and nn.

υera sui multiplicatio: “a true multiplying of itself’; see the next entry on the generative Multiplication of Powers in Nature.

5143 26.17 Allsop’s: The return to Highgate 7 April 1824 represented the conclusion of some unhappinesses and irritations in consequence of which Coleridge left for about ten days to visit Thomas Allsop and his wife in Blandford Place, Pall Mall. The correspondence between Coleridge and Mrs Gillman, and Coleridge and the Allsops at the time indicates illnesses and some sense of reciprocal injuries on all sides, a not uncommon pattern in attempts at control of drug addiction; see CL V 346–51 for relevant letters.

Idea started and pursued by M^r Gillman: James Gillman has perhaps been insufficiently regarded as giving intellectual companionship to Coleridge; see also 4825, 4713 and 4714 and nn.

the Logic of Trichotomy (Vide the larger υellum parallelogram Pocketbook): I.e. N 29; see 4784 and n.

negative Electricity is as truly Electricity as Positive Electricity: See 5249 and n.

f19^v a vital Fluxion: vital as opposed to a mathematical increase; see 5458 and n.

f20 Consciousness: For various other less terse attempts at a description see 4540 and n.

Actus pur absolute purus, sine ullâ potentialitate: “Absolutely pure act, without any potentiality”; see 5241 and n.

Memory…Music: An early theme frequently adverted to; see e.g. The Friend (CC) II 111.

f20^v Inflammation: Gillman had written an essay on rabies for which he won a prize in 1812, but no work of his on inflammation has survived. Possibly there had been some discussion of Matthew Baillie’s treatment of the subject in The Morbid Anatomy of some of the most important parts of the Human Body; in 1815 in a letter to Dr Brabant Coleridge referred to this work (CL IV 613–14) where some phrases here are used, thickening, coagulable lymph (5) etc. But according to J.H.Green, the best authority on inflammation up to 1840 was still John Hunter; Green cited his Principles of Inflammation in his Hunterian Oration for that year, Vital Dynamics 84–5.

Coleridge’s interest in the subject is shown by his careful reading of Jahrbücher der Medicin als Wissenschaft ed. A.F.Marcus and F.W.J. Schelling (Tübingen 1804–08), of which Vol III Pt i is given wholly to the subject of “Entzündung”. Coleridge’s annotations are highly critical of the vagueness and muddle; at one point he was provoked to say in the margin (36): “of which I have not understood one word”.

5144 26.18 The entry struggles with Coleridge’s attempt over a considerable period from about 1817 to understand and define caloric, a term ambiguous and controversial in his day. Beginning typically with the question What is definition? he proceeds on f23 to relate caloric to his logical prolegomena. The passage in pointed brackets at the foot of f22^v and the top of f23 was written in between the lines after the first part of the first sentence of the second paragraph was written, i.e. “The question whether …phænomena”. It was then necessary for him to alter the comma to a full-stop. This insertion on Understanding (f21^v–f23) he saw, after he began on Caloric, as an omitted caveat essential to his whole argument. It is useful to notice these minutiae because a reader of the MS might easily assume that we have here two entries, one on logic and a second, beginning with the second paragraph, on caloric, an assumption fostered, for anyone who looks at the MS, by poorly mixed ink and changes of pen in mid-entry at other points. But we have here, on close inspection, a typical Coleridgian transition from logic and the abstract to physical and chemical concrete, tied to the essential distinction between the powers of the reason and the powers of the understanding. In any case, whether we assume one entry or two here makes little difference to interpretation. These

are notebook jottings, “Hints & first Thoughts”, he said (CN III 3881) not the firm argument smoothed for presentation in lecture or print; the sequence of the reasoning is evident if not absolutely clear. There is extensive discussion of definition, caloric, and imponderable fluids in connexion with definition in TL 25, 63. Had Coleridge himself published TL he might easily have incorporated parts of this entry, which indicates that TL, like AR, was a work in process in his mind for many years.

Genus…species: See 5209 f20 and n. See also an application in 5398 f75.

Diversity in kind precludes…difference in degree: A point he frequently makes; see 4945n.

Reason…intellectual…and practical: After Kant’s “pure” and “practical”.

“the Faculty judging according to Sense”: AR 200, 208. Was he quoting from his own manuscript here? AR was announced as published 10 May 1825.

f23 in the second: I.e. in the practical sense of reason, the a priori source of selfevident truths.

therefore, R[eason] & U[nderstanding] are diverse: Of many developments of this, see e.g. The Friend (CC) I 154–8, AR 200–42; of numerous notebook entries see e.g. 5215 and n.

Caloric: Some of Coleridge’s difficultly with caloric was the incorporating it into his scheme of powers. In this entry he took the position that caloric is a fluidum primum, and hence not decomponible. Once defined in this way, although still without a definite relation to the primary products of creation, e.g. light, it can serve as a basis for related phenomena such as fusion and solubility; cf 4811. Lavoisier in his Traité élémentaire de chimie (2 vols Paris 1789) considered caloric an element. Lavoisier’s work with Laplace raised the question of whether calorique was a fluid (probably Lavoisier’s view) or a force (probably Laplace’s view), but both agree on caloric as the cause of repulsion; cf f24 below. Thomas Beddoes and Humphry Davy thought that Lavoisier placed too much emphasis on the role and cause of heat, neglecting light. Caloric was defined by some of Lavoisier’s contemporaries, e.g. M.van Marum, as “matière du feu, de la chaleur, et de la lumière”—“matter of fire, of warmth, and of light”.

enlargement of Bodies and other physical phænomena: Lavoisier Elements of Chemistry (tr R.Kerr Edinburgh 1790) I: “That every body, whether solid or fluid, is augmented in all its dimensions by any increase of its sensible heat, was long ago fully established as a physical axiom, or universal proposition, by the celebrated Boerhaave.”

the sensation excited: Lavoisier (ibid 4) wrote that the sensation which we call warmth is caused by the accumulation of this substance. Coleridge was apparently carrying on a running polemic against Lavoisier, disputing his materialism on logical grounds.

Vis sive actio calorifica: “calorific power of force”.

Caloric implies…that the subject is a thing: Lavoisier (ibid 5) argued that the term caloric is in agreement “with every species of opinion” because it need not be supposed to be a real substance. Coleridge objected to the logic, from definition of the term.

f23^v by Abstracts: See 4538 and TL 26, on abstraction and generalization.

f23v by Abstracts: See 4538 and TL 26, on abstraction and generalization.

ad huc sub lite: A common tag, “still under consideration”; cf Horace Ars poetica 78.

alterâ parte adhuc inauditâ: “the other side not heard yet”.

By Caloric we understand a Quality: Having accepted the use of the word, Coleridge questioned where it fitted into his own scheme, as an entity or a mode.

Repulsion, for instance: Lavoisier clearly thought that the caloric exerts a repulsive force on particles of matter, which, in turn, exert an attractive force upon one another.

f24 Weight, i.e. positive Darkness: Weight (Gravitation, Attraction) was, in Coleridge’s theory, a subsumptive antithesis springing from the more general Antithesis Darkness; Repulsion was its correspondent opposite springing from the Thesis Light. The term positive Darkness indicates Darkness as such, to be distinguished from Potential Darkness inhering in Light, which Coleridge called Negative Darkness. See CN III 4418 and n, and in this volume 4843 and n.

supposita et postulata, υel potius jussa et præfinita: “presuppositions and postulates; or rather, commands and predefinitions”.

Physiogony: OED lists the first use as by Coleridge in 1834, LR (1838) III 158. In his “Recapitulatory Lecture” attached to his Hunterian Oration (1840) J.H.Green expounded the distinctions physiogony (or “History of Nature”,) physiography (or “Description of Nature”) and physiology (or “Theory of Nature”); Vital Dynamics 101, 37.

creation, not an emanation: See CN III 4418 and n. Coleridge emphasized that God transcended nature and was not a part of it, i.e. that the creation was not a self-originating act from within. The distinction between this view and pantheism is discussed by McFarland CPT 268–71, “Excursus Note IV Panentheism.”

f24^v the world proceeded from the less to the more perfect: See 4551, 4553 and nn, also TL 36. Coleridge had in mind perhaps an analogy between genus and genesis, the genera being the “numbered ascending series of distinct evolutions”, defined by their lowest numbers. This series is not restricted to species of plants and animals but includes all the steps of individuation beginning with the separation of Light and Darkness. See again CN III 4418n.

Kant’s Himmel-system: Kant’s Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels (1755) in VS I 283–520 was, to quote its subtitle in translation, “An Essay on the Constitution and Mechanical Origin of the Whole Universe treated according to Newtonian Principles”. Kant must be credited with priority in suggesting the nebular hypothesis (with some stimulus from the work of Thomas Wright of Durham), but it is generally conceded that Laplace and Lambert, working independently, produced similar theories, Laplace with particularly elegant lucidity in Exposition du système du monde (1796), with additions in later editions; also briefly in his Mécanique Céleste (1825). Georges Louis Le Sage (1724–1803) was prominent for his youthful speculations in discussions of cosmic attraction, repulsion and cohesion, elastic fluids, etc. His Traité de physique mécanique (Geneva & Paris 1818) ed P.Prévost may have been known to Coleridge either directly or through its prominence in reviews. These were all “Newtonian” astronomers, representing the world as a mechanism—enough to unite them perhaps in Coleridge’s mind. Cf the letter to C.A.Tulk 12 Jan 1818 (CL IV 804–9). In site of his theoretical reservations, Coleridge saw the Beneficial Results as producing a Cosmos from Chaos.

+Light and+Darkness: See f24 above.

f25 materia specifica minime ponderabilis: “specific matter of minimal ponderability”.

“dynamic light”.

Heat (Calor dynamicus): “dynamic heat” (as force); Coleridge made his taxonomic ideas even more specific by adopting Linnaeus’s binomial form. In his letter to C.A.Tulk

Sept 1817 (CL IV 771) Coleridge referred to the division of Light and Darkness and identified Darkness with Gravity, but concluded with the statement: “What follows therefore is wholly of the Manifestation or World of finite Relations”. In this entry he was defining and classifying the finite relations, combining the Mosaic cosmogony, Naturphilosophie and the categories of Lavoisier’s chemistry. Steffens’s “indifference” between light and darkness became a species of Lavoisier’s genus Calor.

Color is the synthesis of phænomenal Light: See 4855n and Steffens Grundzüge 53. In 5446 Coleridge worked out the dynamic relations of the genus Colour. The problem was to occupy him for many years. Cf 4929 f30: “Light in the service of Gravitation is Color”. For the significance of real and ideal see 4555 f49. But sound? The reasoning here rested on the recognition that Light and Darkness exist as noumenals and then as phenomenals. Heat was the reciprocal tension, not a new subsumptive thesis, between+Light and+Darkness and thus was important as a generating principle. Color was a new product springing from the phenomenalized tension between light and darkness, sound the product of the noumenal tension.

, an Henad: “a unit/Unity”; see CN III 3824 for the Neoplatonic use. In a marginal note on the Aurora the Henades are Boehme’s “Powers of God”, the highest ideas. CM I under Boehme Works § 32.

Fluidum primum et essentiale: “first and essential fluid”. The use of the term fluid equated with the essential, or noumenal, is common in the history of philosophy, but Coleridge objected to Swedenborg’s “phenomenalizing” of the noumenal with exactly this term, in a note on Swedenborg Oeconomia I 361; see also 4512, 4515 and nn.

The Blunder…representing it as atomic: I.e. representing Calorique as entirely phenomenal.

f25^v Pleuronectes: A flatfish with both eyes on one side of the head; cf 5174.

modern corpuscular Psilosophers: See CN III 3244 and n.

dimidiety: “halfness”; not in OED.

5145 26.19 His own experiment with the astronomical imagery of the solar system, focus, ellipsis, and hyperbola (see 4633 and n) is too much here even for Coleridge. If this was not one of his own “cogitabilia”, his source of the Nonsense has not been found.

5146 28.68 In PW I 489 the first four lines are printed as “L’Envoy” to Love’s Apparition and Evanishment (with significant changes); in a footnote the first six lines are given, rather closer to the notebook entry, from a letter of 27 Apr 1824 [to Allsop] now in CL V 360.

The last four lines appear not to have been printed. These lines were written below and opposite 4810, and possibly some recollection of Sidney’s treatment of love and desire in his Arcadia (where Strephon is “reckoning up our losses”) lies behind them. Against the entry, in another hand (a cramped instance of Mrs Gillman’s) is written: “mistaken”.

5147 28.69 A piece was torn out of the lower right hand corner of the leaf, before it was written on.

The underlining of my is an indication that Coleridge had moved up from the second to the third floor, to the “Bed and Book-room” he chose in 3 The Grove (to which the Gillmans had moved Nov 1823) for its view “over Southampton Farm, Ken Wood & Hampstead not surpassed within a hundred miles of London”. Letter of 18 Feb 1824. CL V 335. Later the room was enlarged by raising its sloping attic ceiling to become the room familiar from the water-colour of George Scharf. C at Highgate 51. See Plate II.

Nightingales still sing in Highgate (1978) and Coleridge enjoyed the competition over hearing the first one; see 5358 f42.

5148 28.70 recommended by my ingenious friend, Mr. S.T.Coleridge: The entry was apparently a draft for the use of J.H.Green in giving lectures to medical students which were noted for their cultural breadth. Green was Professor of Anatomy at the Royal Academy, giving six lectures a year on anatomy and the fine arts from 1825 to 1852. These were no doubt discussed with Coleridge, as fragments of drafts written by Coleridge exist, even on anatomical subjects, in MS Egerton 2800 ff60–2, 67–9, and MS Egerton 2801 ff104–5. The most interesting is a draft for a lecture on comparative anatomy in Coleridge’s hand (MS Egerton 2801 f107 and Add MS 34, 225 ff140–3 and MS Egerton 2800 ff100–1) of which Green’s subsequent lecture exists. Full texts of these and other such fragments will appear in SWF. See also below 5390 and n.

Rhematic: Cf TT 23 Sept 1830: “The object of rhetoric is persuasion,—of logic, conviction,—of grammar, significancy. A fourth term is wanting, the rhematic, or logic of sentences.” OED quotes Coleridge here for this use. See above 4771, 5133 f96 and nn; also Logic (CC) 22–3, 101.

copia υerborum: “stock of words”.

After this entry, and probably at about the same date, a footnote to 4724 was inserted; see 4724 and n.

5149 26.84 This was the first entry on the back leaf of this notebook, Coleridge having turned the book to write from the back.

Henry Taylor (1800–86) was author of Philip van Artevelde (1834), a novel that appeared about a month before Coleridge’s death. He wrote articles for the London Magazine and QR, and from 1824 onwards was a clerk in the Colonial Office, active on the slavery issue, holding gradualist views about emancipation. He knew WW and RS in the north, but Coleridge only later in London.

Coleridge sent a letter to the address in the entry 25 May 1824 (CL V 365); a week earlier he had not known the address so left a blank on the envelope, which was filled in by someone else. The entry may therefore possibly be dated 18–25 May 1824, after which Taylor paid several visits to Highgate. A few days before 29 Sept 1831 he paid “an auscultatory visit” with James Stephen and J.S.Mill when one subject was the National Debt. Correspondence of Henry Taylor ed Edward Dowden (1888) 39–40. See also 5365 n.

5150 29.261 With this whole entry cf 4648, 4929 and nn above.

plastic Life: See an earlier reference to the instinctive spirit of plastic Volition in CN in 3840 f120, also the MS fragment on Meckel quoted in 5217 n below.

The first sentence here, perhaps the whole entry, is related to (in preparation for?) Op Max; cf Op Max (MS) f97: “In the implicit conception therefore of life as unity, as plastic and as invisible, the human mind commences”, or ff113–115 where a “principle of activity from within even in its lowest degree of power even as it manifests itself in a lichen or a fungus” is described as “inconceivable except as spontaneity” and that in turn as “inconceivable except as grounded in a Will,” and “plastic nature” is described as the “identity” of “energy” and “receptivity”.

what there is of Life in plastic Nature: Cf above 4639 f22.

sub eâdem Prothesi: “under the same Prothesis”.

Self in Self-Consciousness: See above 4929 f32 and n. Here too Op Max (MS) provides (II f98) a gloss: “With the awakening of self-consciousness, the first sign…of which is not its own bodily shape, but the gradually dawning presence of the mother’s, the conception of life is elevated into that of personeity.” This sentence follows immediately the first one quoted above.

Natura Naturans or Zωoείδες τì: “Nature actively creating” (see above 4843 and n) or “something resembling life”; cf 5168 and n for related coinages.

Multiplication of powers in Nature: I.e. suggesting a way by which schemes of powers such as the one in CN III 4226 may be genetically understood. The argument is also useful for Coleridge’s desire to account for the ascent of the power of Life. See the beginning of 5142 and n, and esp 4929 where Gen 1:26 was quoted and the phrase descending Humanity more fully explained (4929 f29^v).

Natura Naturans or Zωoείδες τì: “Nature actively creating” (see above 4843 and n) or “something resembling life”; cf 5168 and n for related coinages.

Multiplication of powers in Nature:I.e. suggesting a way by which schemes of powers such as the one in CN III 4226 may be genetically understood. The argument is also useful for Coleridge’s desire to account for the ascent of the power of Life. See the beginning of 5142 and n, and esp 4929 where Gen 1:26 was quoted and the phrase descending Humanity more fully explained (4929 f29^v).

aliud et majus, υi ipsius Naturæ: “other and greater, by the force of Nature herself”.

Contractility…in Bostock’s…application of the term to Haller’s Irritability: John Bostock M.D., in his Elementary System of Physiology (3 vols 1824–7) I 161–2, discussing the physical properties of muscle, said many physiologists used the word irritability, including Haller, “who had the merit of first comprehending the nature and extent of this property”; but Bostock preferred contractility, the word irritability being used in too many different contexts. Haller was held correct in his hypothesis but unfortunate in his terms. Coleridge’s objection to Bostock’s change in the word may be owing to the fact, which he states, that Blu-menbach used contractility in a different sense. See 5168 where Irritabil-ity is objected to, and instinctivity suggested. The contemporary struggle over terms had its deep basis in the vitalist-mechanist conflict. See e.g. an article in No 25 QJSLA (Apr 1822) XIII 96–113 by A.P.W.Philip, M.D., “A Review of some of the General Principles of Physiology, with the practical Inferences to which they have led”. Haller’s theory of irritability is described, “that the power of muscles resides in themselves, and is only lost when the influence of the nervous system is withdrawn in consequence of the failure of other powers, and that this influence acts only as a stimulus to the muscles, and that only with respect to those of voluntary motion, those of involuntary motion being excited by other means” (98). 5217 and n is pertinent here. K.A.Rudolphi, whose work Coleridge knew and referred to later in N 36, objected to irritability as generally used especially in a vegetable context, saying that contractility only was applicable to vegetation.

5151 29.112 Used in Inq Sp § 33. Coleridge’s comments on medical practice are numerous and various; see CN III 3431 and n, and many entries in this volume on the physiology of diseases.

See John Harris “Coleridge’s Readings in Medicine” W Circle (Spring 1972) III ii 85– 95; also R.Guest-Gornall “Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the Doctors” Medical History (Oct 1973) XVII 327–42.

In a note on C.A.F.Kluge’s Darstellung des animalischen Magnetismus, als Heilmittel (Berlin 1815) 14, Coleridge referred to Friedrich Hoffmann on sleep and cases of “magnetopathia”, citing Hoffman Opera omnia physico-medica (6 vols Geneva 1748–53) III 49–50. There was a copy of this work in Gillman’s library. Hoffman, as impressive in learning as in Common Sense, was strong on water drinking and natural remedies.

Coleridge had the use of two good medical libraries, Green’s and Gillman’s, and unusual access to contemporary medical men.

5152 29.113 Like 4917, from Phil Mag (July 1822) LX 71.

5153 29.114 4 June 1824: The previous evening Coleridge had been to “a dance and rout” at J.H.Green’s in Lincoln’s Inn, where he and HCR talked till the early hours of the morning. CL V 368 and n. Was selfishness unnaturally socialized there? Or did political talk with HCR lead to these reflections?

party-spirit: The “agitations of party spirit” as he called them, gave rise to three letters by Coleridge to the Courier in 1811. EOT (CC) III 279–82, 305–13 to give but a few among his many uses of the phrase.