CCXVIII. TO THE SAME.
[December 13, 1817.]
My dear Sir,—I thank you for the transcript. The lecture[154] went off beyond my expectations; and in several parts, where the thoughts were the same, more happily expressed extempore than in the Essay on the Science of Method[155] for the “Encyclopædia Metropolitana.” However, you shall receive the first correct copy of the latter that I can procure. I would that I could present it to you, as it was written; though I am not inclined to quarrel with the judgment and prudence of omission, as far as the public are concerned. Be assured, I shall not fail to avail myself of your kind invitation, and that time passes happily with me under your roof, receiving and returning. Be pleased to make my best respects to Mrs. Green, and I beg her acceptance of the “Hebrew Dirge” with my free translation,[156] of which I will, as soon as it is printed, send her the music, viz. the original melody, and Bishop’s additional music. Of this I am convinced, that a dozen of such “very pretty,” and “so sweet,” and “how smooth,” “well, that is charming” compositions would gain me more admiration with the English public than twice the number of poems twice as good as the “Ancient Mariner,” the “Christabel,” the “Destiny of Nations,” or the “Ode to the Departing Year.”
My own opinion of the German philosophers does not greatly differ from yours; much in several of them is unintelligible to me, and more unsatisfactory. But I make a division. I reject Kant’s stoic principle, as false, unnatural, and even immoral, where in his “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft,”[157] he treats the affections as indifferent (ἀδιάφορα) in ethics, and would persuade us that a man who disliking, and without any feeling of love for virtue, yet acted virtuously, because and only because his duty, is more worthy of our esteem, than the man whose affections were aidant to and congruous with his conscience. For it would imply little less than that things not the objects of the moral will or under its control were yet indispensable to its due practical direction. In other words, it would subvert his own system. Likewise, his remarks on prayer in his “Religion innerhalb der reinen Vernunft,” are crass, nay vulgar and as superficial even in psychology as they are low in taste. But with these exceptions, I reverence Immanuel Kant with my whole heart and soul, and believe him to be the only philosopher, for all men who have the power of thinking. I cannot conceive the liberal pursuit or profession, in which the service derived from a patient study of his works would not be incalculably great, both as cathartic, tonic, and directly nutritious.
Fichte in his moral system is but a caricature of Kant’s, or rather, he is a Zeno, with the cowl, rope, and sackcloth of a Carthusian monk. His metaphysics have gone by; but he hath merit of having prepared the ground for, and laid the first stone of, the dynamic philosophy by the substitution of Act for Thing, Der einführen Actionen statt der Dinge an sich. Of the Natur-philosophen, as far as physical dynamics are concerned and as opposed to the mechanic corpuscular system, I think very highly of some parts of their system, as being sound and scientific—metaphysics of Quality, not less evident to my reason than the metaphysics of Quantity, that is, Geometry, etc.; of the rest and larger part, as tentative, experimental, and highly useful to a chemist, zoologist, and physiologist, as unfettering the mind, exciting its inventive powers. But I must be understood as confining these observations to the works of Schelling and H. Steffens. Of Schelling’s Theology and Theanthroposophy, the telescopic stars and nebulæ are too many for my “grasp of eye.” (N. B. The catachresis is Dryden’s, not mine.) In short, I am half inclined to believe that both he and his friend Francis Baader are but half in earnest, and paint the veil to hide not the face but the want of one.[158] Schelling is too ambitious, too eager to be the Grand Seignior of the allein-selig Philosophie to be altogether a trustworthy philosopher. But he is a man of great genius; and, however unsatisfied with his conclusions, one cannot read him without being either whetted or improved. Of the others, saving Jacobi, who is a rhapsodist, excellent in sentences all in small capitals, I know either nothing, or too little to form a judgement. As my opinions were formed before I was acquainted with the schools of Fichte and Schelling, so do they remain independent of them, though I con- and pro-fess great obligations to them in the development of my thoughts, and yet seem to feel that I should have been more useful had I been left to evolve them myself without knowledge of their coincidence. I do not very much like the Sternbald[159] of our friend; it is too like an imitation of Heinse’s “Ardinghello,”[160] and if the scene in the Painter’s Garden at Rome is less licentious than the correspondent abomination in the former work, it is likewise duller.
I have but merely looked into Jean Paul’s “Vorschule der Aisthetik,”[161] but I found one sentence almost word for word the same as one written by myself in a fragment of an Essay on the Supernatural[162] many years ago, viz. that the presence of a ghost is the terror, not what he does, a principle which Southey, too, overlooks in his “Thalaba” and “Kehama.”
But I must conclude. Believe me, dear sir, with unfeigned regard and esteem, your obliged
S. T. Coleridge.
I expect my eldest son, Hartley Coleridge, to-day from Oxford.
CCXIX. TO CHARLES AUGUSTUS TULK.[163]
Highgate, Thursday evening, 1818.
Dear Sir,—As an innocent female often blushes not at any image which had risen in her own mind, but from a confused apprehension of some x y z that might be attributed to her by others, so did I feel uncomfortable at the odd coincidence of my commending to you the late Swedenborgian advertisement. But when I came home I simply asked Mrs. G. if she remembered my having read to her such an address. She instantly replied not only in the affirmative, but mentioned the circumstance of my having expressed a sort of half-inclination, half-intention of addressing a letter to the chairman mentioning my receipt of a book of which I highly approved, and requesting him to transmit my acknowledgments, if, as was probable, the author was known to him or any of the gentlemen with him. I asked her then if she had herself read the advertisement? “Yes, and I carried it to Mr. Gillman, saying how much you had been pleased with the style and the freedom from the sectarian spirit.” “And do you recollect the name of the Chairman?” “No! why, bless me! could it be Mr. Tulk?” Very nearly the same conversation took place with Mr. Gillman afterwards. I can readily account for the fact in myself; for first I never recollect any persons by their names, and have fallen into some laughable perplexities by this specific catalepsy of memory, such as accepting an invitation in the streets from a face perfectly familiar to me, and being afterwards unable to attach the name and habitat thereto; and secondly, that the impression made by a conversation that appeared to me altogether accidental and by your voice and person had been completed before I heard your name; and lastly, the more habitual thinking is to any one, the larger share has the relation of cause and effect in producing recognition. But it is strange that neither Mrs. or Mr. Gillman should have recollected the name, though probably the accidentality of having made your acquaintance, and its being at Little Hampton, and associated with our having at the same time and by a similar accidental rencontre become acquainted with the Rev. Mr. Cary and his family, overlaid any former relique of a man’s name in Mrs. G. as well as myself.
I return you Blake’s poesies,[164] metrical and graphic, with thanks. With this and the book, I have sent a rude scrawl as to the order in which I was pleased by the several poems.
With respectful compliments to Mrs. Tulk, I remain, dear sir, your obliged
S. T. Coleridge.
Thursday evening, Highgate.
Blake’s Poems.—I begin with my dyspathies that I may forget them, and have uninterrupted space for loves and sympathies. Title-page and the following emblem contain all the faults of the drawings with as few beauties as could be in the compositions of a man who was capable of such faults and such beauties. The faulty despotism in symbols amounting in the title-page to the μισητὸν, and occasionally, irregular unmodified lines of the inanimate, sometimes as the effect of rigidity and sometimes of exossation like a wet tendon. So likewise the ambiguity of the drapery. Is it a garment or the body incised and scored out? The lumpness (the effect of vinegar on an egg) in the upper one of the two prostrate figures in the title-page, and the straight line down the waistcoat of pinky goldbeaters’ skin in the next drawing, with the I don’t-know-whatness of the countenance, as if the mouth had been formed by the habit of placing the tongue not contemptuously, but stupidly, between the lower gums and the lower jaw—these are the only repulsive faults I have noticed. The figure, however, of the second leaf, abstracted from the expression of the countenance given it by something about the mouth, and the interspace from the lower lip to the chin, is such as only a master learned in his art could produce.
N. B. I signifies “It gave me great pleasure.” Ɨ, “Still greater.” ƗƗ, “And greater still,” Θ, “In the highest degree.” O, “In the lowest.”
Shepherd, I; Spring, I (last stanza, Ɨ); Holy Thursday, ƗƗ; Laughing Song, Ɨ; Nurse’s Song, I; The Divine Image, Θ; The Lamb, Ɨ; The little black Boy, Θ yea Θ+Θ; Infant Joy, ƗƗ (N. B. For the three last lines I should write, “When wilt thou smile,” or “O smile, O smile! I’ll sing the while.” For a babe two days old does not, cannot smile, and innocence and the very truth of Nature must go together. Infancy is too holy a thing to be ornamented). “The Echoing Green,” I, (the figures Ɨ, and of the second leaf, ƗƗ); “The Cradle Song,” I; “The School Boy,” ƗƗ; Night, Θ; “On another’s Sorrow,” I; “A Dream,” ?; “The little boy lost,” I (the drawing, Ɨ); “The little boy found,” I; “The Blossom,” O; “The Chimney Sweeper,” O; “The Voice of the Ancient Bard,” O.
Introduction, Ɨ; Earth’s Answer, Ɨ; Infant Sorrow, I; “The Clod and the Pebble,” I; “The Garden of Love,” Ɨ; “The Fly,” I; “The Tyger,” Ɨ; “A little boy lost,” Ɨ; “Holy Thursday,” I; [p. 13, O; “Nurse’s Song,” O?]; “The little girl lost and found” (the ornaments most exquisite! the poem, I); “Chimney Sweeper in the Snow,” O; “To Tirzah, and the Poison Tree,” I—and yet O; “A little Girl lost,” O. (I would have had it omitted, not for the want of innocence in the poem, but from the too probable want of it in many readers.) “London,” I; “The Sick Rose,” I; “The little Vagabond,” O. Though I cannot approve altogether of this last poem, and have been inclined to think that the error which is most likely to beset the scholars of Emanuel Swedenborg is that of utterly demerging the tremendous incompatibilities with an evil will that arise out of the essential Holiness of the abysmal A-seity[165] in the love of the Eternal Person, and thus giving temptation to weak minds to sink this love itself into Good Nature, yet still I disapprove the mood of mind in this wild poem so much less than I do the servile blind-worm, wrap-rascal scurf-coat of fear of the modern Saint (whose whole being is a lie, to themselves as well as to their brethren), that I should laugh with good conscience in watching a Saint of the new stamp, one of the first stars of our eleemosynary advertisements, groaning in wind-pipe! and with the whites of his eyes upraised at the audacity of this poem! Anything rather than this degradation I of Humanity, and therein of the Incarnate Divinity!
S. T. C.
O means that I am perplexed and have no opinion.
I, with which how can we utter “Our Father”?