LIBRARV University of California, Class The German Influence ON Samuel Taylor Coleridge AN abridgment OF A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Philosophy of the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BY JOHN LOUIS HANEY 0>^ THE PHILADELPHIA 1902 CONTENTS Page Before the Visit to Germany (1772-1798) 3 Coleridge in Germany (1798-1799) 9 Immediate Results (1799-1800) 13 The Wallenstein Translation (1800) 19 The Years of Unrest ( 1800-1816) 24 The Sage of Highgate ( 1816-1834) 32 The German Influence on Coleridge 38 117883 THE GERMAN INFLUENCE ON SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. The study of comparative literature has done much to estabhsh the inter-relationship of early literary monuments, and to illustrate the adaptations and variations of themes and episodes in the ages when sources w^ere relatively few and were widely known among the learned classes. When, however, we carry our researches into more recent fields, and seek to trace the genesis of the complex literary utter- ances of a modern writer, we are frequently confronted by a bewildering array of possible sources and influences. Our knowledge of the writer's tastes, his studies, his travels, the books in his library, and a score of other factors are of invaluable aid in determining the character and extent of his indebtedness to previous authors; yet, even with the greatest care, the critic who undertakes to trace a particular influence is prone to exaggerate its importance. In his desire to strengthen his chain of evidence, he refers every utterance of the writer to its nearest analogue in the sus- pected source; and when that source happens to be a great national literature, it is a remarkable thought or bit of imagery that cannot be traced to some more or less plausible original. In the case of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the temptation to find a strong German influence is unusually great. He read innumerable volumes of German poetry, criticism, and philosophy, and his own works abound in borrowings and adaptations from German originals. The results of this extensive appropriation are undoubtedly evident in most of Coleridge's later works; but to insist that these German influences are manifest in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, 2 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. Christabcl, and Ktibla Khan is evidently too great a demand upon the credulity of dispassionate readers. The foundations of our attributed influences are neces- sarily the author's own acknowledgements, direct and indi- rect, supplemented by those obligations that can be estab- lished beyond a possibility of doubt. The careful critic is mindful of the line of demarcation between the proved and the probable or possible. The acceptance of the former is incumbent upon all ; the weight of the latter rests mainly on the evidence and the authority of the critic. In the thesis abridged in the following pages an attempt was made to show the real character of the influence of German literature upon Coleridge by discussing ( i ) Cole- ridge's own utterances concerning German authors and their writings; (2) the evident literary influences, whether acknowledged or not; (3) the probable or possible influ- ences that have been advanced and supported by various critics. BEFORE THE VISIT TO GERMANY (1772-1798). The accounts of Coleridge's omnivorous reading in his boyhood days at Ottery and afterwards at Christ's Hospital record no works by German authors. The first apparent reference to a German writer was at the age of twenty-two, when, as a student at Cambridge, Coleridge wrote (Novem- ber, 1794) a letter to Southey describing his first acquain- tance with Die Rdiibcr: '"Tis past one o'clock in the morn- ing. I sat down at twelve o'clock to read the ' Robbers ' of Schiller. I had read, chill and trembling, when I came to the part where the Moor fixes a pistol over the robbers who are asleep. I could read no more. My God, Southey, who is this Schiller, this convulser of the heart? Did he write his tragedy amid the yelling of fiends? . . . Why have we ever called Milton sublime? that Count de Moor horrible wielder of heart withering virtues ? Satan is scarcely quali- fied to attend his execution as gallows chaplain."^ Coleridge, who read the play in Lord Woodhouselee's (1792) translation, gave fuller expression of his enthusiasm in his sonnet To the Author of 'The Robbers'- which was probably written soon after, and was published in his Poems (1796) with the following note: "One night in winter, on leaving a College-friend's room, with whom I had supped, I carelessly took away with me 'The Robbers,' a drama the very name of which I had never before heard of : A winter midnight — the wind high — and 'The Robbers' for the first time! The readers of Schiller will conceive what I felt. Schiller introduces no supernatural beings ; yet his human beings agitate and astonish more than all the goblin rout — even of Shakespeare." ^Letters, ed. E. H. Coleridge, I, 96-97. ^Poet. Works, ed. Campbell, pp. 34, 572. 3 4 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. Coleridge soon familiarized himself with other works of Schiller that appeared in translation about this time. In his Condones ad Popiihim (1795) in condemning the British recruiting methods, he wrote : " Schiller, a German himself, (beneath the tremendous sublimity of whose genius we have glowed and shuddered, while we perused 'The Rob- bers,') in his tragedy of 'Cabal and Love' represents a German prince as having sent a casket of jewels to his con- cubine. On her enquiring what might be the price of the jewels, she is told they were received from the English gov- ernment, for seven thousand young men sent to America."^ This was followed by a passage evidently quoted from [J. R. Timaus'] translation (1795) of the play. In The Plot Discovered (1795) he again referred to the "tremendous sublimity" of Schiller.^ A year later, Coleridge published the short-lived Watch- man. The third number contained a "Historical Sketch of the Manners and Religion of the Ancient Germans, Intro- ductory to his Sketch of the Manners, Religion and Politics of Present Germany." The untimely death of the paper prevented the completion of the plan. There was a passing allusion to Goethe's Wertcr^ in one of the later numbers. In a letter of April i, 1796, we find Coleridge's first ref- erence to Lessing. He wrote: "The most formidable infi- del is Lessing, the author of Emilia Galotti; I ought to have written ivas, for he is dead. His book is not yet trans- lated, and it is entitled, in German, 'Fragments of an Anonymous Author.' It unites the wit of Voltaire with the subtlety of Hume and the profound erudition of our Lard- ner. I had some thoughts of translating it with an answer, but gave it up, lest men, whose tempers and hearts incline them to disbelief, should get hi^ld of it; and. though the ^Essays on his Oivn Times, ed. Sara Coleridge, I, 50-51- 'Ibid., I, p. 70. *Omui(i)ia, ed. T. Ashe, pp. 378-379. BEFORE THE VISIT TO GERMANY. 5 answers are satisfactory to my own mind, they may not be equally so to the minds of others."^ In May, 1796, when he recognized that The Watchman was a failure, Coleridge communicated his immediate plans to his friend Poole: "I am studying German, and in about six weeks shall be able to read that language with tolerable fluency. Now I have some thoughts of making a proposal to Robinson, the great London bookseller, of translating all the works of Schiller, which would make a portly quarto, on condition that he should pay my journey and my wife's to and from Jena, a cheap German University where Schiller resides, and allow me two guineas each quarto sheet, which would maintain me. If I could realize this scheme, I should there study chemistry and anatomy, and bring over with me all the works of Semler and Michaelis, the German theologians, and of Kant, the great German metaphysi- cian."^ Nothing came of this proposal. A few months later (July, 1796) Charles Lamb wrote to Coleridge: "Have you read the Ballad called 'Leonora' in the second Number of the Monthly Magazine? If you have ! ! ! ! There is another fine song, from the same author (Burger) in the third Number, of scarce inferior merit." ^ In spite of the fact that Coleridge left no record of having read Leonora at that time, much stress has been laid on Lamb's letter by the critics. In a note appended to a letter of December, 1796, Coleridge quoted a passage from Voss's Luise, and observed that Moses Mendelssohn was deemed Germany's "profoundest metaphysician, with the exception of the most unintelligible Immanuel Kant."* In his unsuccessful tragedy Osorio {17^7) the first evi- dences of German influence are manifest. Professor 1 Works, ed. Shedd, III, 634-635. '^Jbid., Ill, 638-639. See also Brandl, S. T. C. luid die englische Ro- mantik, or Lady Eastlake's translation, pp. 157: 151. ' Lamb's Letters, ed. Ainger, I, p. 30. * Letters, op. cit., I, 203-204. O SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. BrandP investigated the sources of Osorio and made clear Coleridge's obligation to Schiller's Dcr Geisfcrschcr and Die Rdiiher. The former work was translated into English (1795) by [D. Boileau] as The Ghostscer, or the Appari- tionist. The first three acts of Osorio are based upon part of the Sicilian's Tale in The Ghostseer, but the catastrophe and certain details were necessarily changed. The influence of Die Riinber is quite evident throughout, notably in the dungeon scene. The play was set in the prevalent style of the School of Terror, with the machinery of the Inquisition and its dark, mysterious personages. In November, 1797, Coleridge wrote to Cottle that he was translating Wieland's O heron, but nothing further was heard of it. About this time. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and (probably) Chrisfabcl were begun. It is likely that The Wanderings of Cain — an exquisite prose fragment in avowed imitation of Gessner's Death of Abel — was writ- ten early in 1798. To this same brief epoch of golden poetry belongs the witching melody of Kubla Khan. The idea of visiting Germany with the Wordsworths took definite shape before March, 1798, and arrangements were completed during the summer. Early in September, a few days before their departure, the Lyrical Ballads were pub- lished. The reception accorded to that memorable volume was unfavorable, but not as hostile as most literary histori- ans would lead us to believe. The significant point of the contemporary criticism lay in the general disapprobation of The Ancient Mariner. Soutbey- called the poem "a Dutch attempt at German subHmity," and this opinion was echoed in the Analytical Rcviczv;' which found in the poem "more of the e.xtravagance of a mad German poet, than the sim- plicity of our ancient ballad writers." Charles Lamb scored ' Brandl, op. cit.. 171-177:167-170. 2 Critical Re,:. XXIV, n. s., 197-204. C£. Robberd's Memoir of IVilliam Taylor, I, p. 223. !>.4nalylicnl Rev.. XXVIII, p. 583- BEFORE THE VISIT TO GERMANY. 7 Southey for the impertinent criticism: "If you wrote that review in the Critical Rcvieiv, I am sorry you are so sparing of praise to the Ancient Mar in ere. So far from calHng it as you do, with some wnt but more severity, a 'Dutch at- tempt,' etc., I call it a right English attempt, and a success- ful one, to dethrone German sublimity." ' No thorough and systematic study of the sources of The Ancient Mariner has yet been made, though Cruikshank's dream, Shelvocke's Voyages, James' Strange and Danger- ous Voyage, and the letter of St. Paulinus to Macarius have all been duly considered. The only question of present interest is Coleridge's imputed obligation to Biirger's Lenore. Emile Legouis wrote^ that Coleridge was "full of enthusiasm for Burger's Lenore when he undertook The Ancient Mariner," but mentioned no authority for that state- ment. Similarly, Professor Brandl ^ found both direct and indirect influence of Lenore in TJie Ancient Mariner, as well as in Christabel, Kuhla Khan, Love, and The Ballad of the Dark Ladie. While it is probable that Coleridge knew the popular Lenore in translation, we are hardly justified in claiming that he was "full of enthusiasm" for a poem which he did not mention ; and Professor Brandl's only cited objec- tive authority is Lamb's letter asking Coleridge if he had read Leonora. Tlie latter critic sought to establish the "influence" by citing such analogies as the sinking of the ship at the end of The Ancient Mariner, and the disappear- ance of the horse at the end of Lenore. Lamb exercised his rare critical faculty when he rebuked Southey's sneer, and , defended The Ancient Mariner as a "right English attempt." Recently, Professor Beers,* in taking exception to Southey's remark, wrote : "The Mariner is not in the least German, and when he wrote it Coleridge ' Letters, ed. Ainger, I, p. 95. ^ Early years of Wordsworth, p. 421. ^Lenore in England, in Erich Schmidt's Charaktcristikcn, p. 247. * A History of Eng. Romanticism in the Eighteenth Century, p. 419. S SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. had not been in Germany and did not know the language." The statement is vaHd, though the reasoning is inconclu- sive ; in the preceding year, Coleridge had known enough of translated German literature to borrow extensively from Schiller for his Osorio. There is no reason why Coleridge should not have imitated Lenore, if he had been so inclined; but the fact that such an imputed imitation explains nothing that is not otherwise explicable, afifords small excuse for insisting upon such an influence. The same holds true of Kiihla Khan; if we must accept the line, "By woman wail- ing for her demon-lover" as a direct influence of Lenore, to what source shall we turn for the similar idea, "And mingle foul embrace with fiends of Hell" expressed in the sonnet on Mrs. Siddons, which was written by Coleridge and Lamb two years before any English version of Lenore was printed ? Compared to the indisputable influence of Schiller on Osorio, and Coleridge's frequent reference to that poet, the plea for Lenore influence on the 1797-98 poems seems far- fetched ; the motive of the maiden and her ghostly lover was present in English balladry long before the time of Biirger and was familiar to every reader of Percy's RcUques. Numerous sources, quite as probable as Lenore, could be mentioned, yet there would be no actual gain in our knowl- edge of the genesis of the poems. We have seen that Coleridge possessed some knowledge of German literature and made several attempts to study the language before his departure for Germany in 1798. The influence of Schiller was paramount, but he also knew something of Lessing, Voss, Wieland, and Goethe. Schil- ler's influence was important, since Coleridge regarded him as one of the greatest of living poets and dramatists; but this admiration soon waned, and Coleridge assumed a more conservative attitude even before he visited Germany. COLERIDGE IN GERMANY (1798-1799). There is considerable material^ for an account of Cole- ridge's visit to Germany, but large gaps still remain in the narrative. It is an important period in Coleridge's career,^ marking the turning point from his poetical activity to his interest in philosophy and criticism. The two epochs are not distinct, as Coleridge never lost that catholicity of spirit which made him the greatest of living minds in the eyes of his friends and contemporaries. Yet an analysis of his mental development, as indicated by Professor Brandl and others^ must lead to the accepted conclusion. The party that sailed on September 16, 1798, from Yar- mouth on the Hamburg packet included William and Dor- othy Wordsworth, Coleridge, and the latter's friend, John Chester, who remained with him throughout the German visit. The voyage was admirably described in the first of Satyrane's Letters, printed in The Friend, and afterwards with the Biographia Literaria.^ They reached Hamburg on Wednesday, September 19, and spent the first few days in Germany as described in Satyrane's second letter and Dorothy Wordsworth's journal. On Thursday, Words- worth and Coleridge met Klopstock's brother. In describ- ing a fine portrait of Lessing at the latter's home, Coleridge disclaimed all previous knowledge of Lessing "but his name, and that he was a German writer of eminence."* Evidently he had forgotten his intention to translate Fragment e eines Ungenannten in 1796. ^Letters, I, 257-258. 2 See Quarterly Rev., CLXV, p. 60 seq., Westminster Rev., CLXV, p. 528 seq., and Edinburgh Rev., CLXII, p. 301 seq. " Works, III, 505-554. *Ibid.,Ul, p. 525. 9 lO SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. On the following day (September 21) Coleridge and Wordsworth visited the poet Klopstock, and had the mem- orable interview that is reproduced from Wordsworth's notes in Satyrane's third letter.' Both poets were disap- pointed when they perceived Klopstock's ignorance of early German literature, and his uncompromising attitude toward Schiller and other romantic writers. Coleridge told Klop- stock that he intended to write a history of German poetry and would gladly translate some of the latter's odes as specimens. Klopstock begged him to do so, in order to atone for the miserable translations that had appeared ; but like many other plans of Coleridge's, it was never executed. On September 23, Coleridge went to Ratzeburg wuth a letter of introduction from Klopstock, and spent several days in making arrangements to settle there for a protracted stay. During his absence, Wordsworth had two more in- terviews with the venerable German poet. Coleridge re- turned on the 27th and left for Ratzeburg on October i, accompanied by the faithful Chester. Two days later the Wordsworths started for Goslar, where they spent a dreary but industrious winter. Coleridge has given us an interest- ing account'^ of his life in the home of the good pastor of Ratzeburg. He applied himself diligently to the study of German and at the same time learned much of German domestic life. He enjoyed the Christmas ceremonials and wrote home the letters which afterwards appeared in The Friend as Christmas zvithin Doors in the North of Germany, and Christmas out of Doors.^ 1 In using these notes, Coleridge allowed the pronoun of the first person to stand as Wordsworth wrote it, and used the same for himself. The confusion is best overcome by referring to the original notes as printed in Knight's Life of Wordsivorth, I, 171-177. Satyrane's third letter reproduces Wordsworth's notes of two subsequent interviews with KIoi>stock. at which Coleridge was not present. ^ Works, III, p. 300, note; Letters, I, 262-288. i Works, II, .335-338. COLERIDGE IN GERMANY. H Early in January, Coleridge wrote' to Poole that he in- tended to proceed to Gottingen and undertake some lucra- tive work. He proposed to write a Life of Lessing, with an account of the rise and present state of German literature. Moreover, he declared that he had already written "a little life from three different biographies," and intended to read all of Lessing's works at Gottingen in chronological order. Coleridge left Ratzeburg on February 6, and, after a short stay at Hanover, reached Gottingen on the 12th, carrying letters of introduction to Professors Heyne and Blumen- bach. A few days later he matriculated at the University and began serious study. Coleridge's record of his own industry is well known.^ His preparation for a "Life of Lessing" was supplemented by extensive reading of meta- physics, wdiich soon held him with a relentless grasp. After three months of study, he joined a small party of friends for the memorable ascent of the Brocken which resulted in a most exquisite literary memorial — his Fragment of a Jour- nal of a Tour over the Brocken} At Elbingerode, Cole- ridge wrote the lines beginning, " I stood on Brocken's sov- ran height" in the inn album. After visiting Blankenburg, Werningerode, Goslar, and Klausthal, the party returned to Gottingen. On June 23, a farewell supper was tendered to Coleridge and Chester at Professor Blumenbach's. Before leaving for England, #iey spent several days at Wolfenbiittel, where Coleridge made inquiries concerning Lessing, and made the acquaintance of Professor Zimmermann. They reached England some time during July. Coleridge had been in Germany somewhat over nine months. What he accomplished there is best summarized in a letter* that he wrote to Josiah Wedgwood. He de- ^ Letters, I, 267-270. « ^ Works, III, 301-303. See also Carlyon, Early Years and Late Reflec- tions, I, 31-33, etc. ^Miscellanies, ed. Ashe, pp. 187-197. < Cottle, Reminiscences, pp. 316-317. 12 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. clared that he had learned the language and could speak it fluently, though with "hideous" pronunciation; that he had studied the German dialects ; that he had attended regularly the lectures on physiology, anatomy, and natural history; that he had collected material for a history of belles-lettres in Germany before the time of Lessing ; and, finally, that he had made large collections for a "Life of Lessing." He concluded with the significant sentence : " I shall have bought thirty pounds worth of books, chiefly metaphysics and with a view to the one work, to which I hope to dedicate in silence, the prime of my life; but I believe and indeed doubt not, that before Christmas I shall have repaid my- self." It is thus clear, that even before leaving Germany, Cole- ridge was intent upon that elaborate philosophical magnum opus to which he devoted the best portion of his life, but which was never realized to justify his desertion of the poetic muse. His effort to formulate an inclusive, unas- sailable system was a worthy ambition ; yet the attempt was not made without a great sacrifice. IMMEDIATE RESULTS (1799-1800). While Coleridge was engaged in his Hterary and philo- sophical studies in Germany, he did not altogether abandon poetry. He wrote a small number of original poems, and made half a score of translations from various German poets. Some of the latter were perhaps written after his return to England. Campbell has given the conjectural date (? 1799) to most of them. They are best discussed in the order in which they appear in his edition of Coleridge's poetical works. When Coleridge sent the original Hexameters^ beginning "William, my teacher, my friend!" to Wordsworth at Gos- lar, he wrote in the accompanying letter^ that "our lan- guage is, in some instances, better adapted to these metres than the German." The lines possess no intrinsic merit, and are not all metrically correct. Coleridge's experiment was evidently prompted by the extensive imitation of the metre among German poets. The hexameter Hyum to the Earth^ is a somewhat amplified translation, in the original metre, of part of Stolberg's Hymne an die Erde. It was regarded as an original poem until the appearance of Freili- grath's Tauchnitz edition (1852) of Coleridge. Freiligrath was likewise the first to show that the Catnllian Hende- casyllabics'^ are a free translation of the beginning of Mat- thisson's Milesisehes Mdrchen. Brandl^ stated incorrectly that the poem is translated in the metre of the original, Coleridge substituted a dactyl for a two-syllable foot at the '^ Poet. Works, pp. 137-138. 2 Knight, Life of Wordsworth, I, p. 185. 'Poet. Works, pp. 138-139, 615. * Poet. Works, pp. 140, 616. 5 Erandl, op. cit., pp. 264 : 249. 13 14 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. beginning of each verse, hence twelve instead of eleven syl- lables. A variant text appeared in Cottle's Reminiscences^ with the more appropriate title, The English Duodecasyl- lable. Other translations were for a long time regarded as orig- inal poems. The couplets describing The Homeric Hexa- meter and The Ovidian Elegiac Metre^ respectively were not recognized as translations from Schiller until 1847, ^^'^ even then the originals were printed in the notes without comment. In the case of The British Striplings War- Song^ — a translation of Stolberg's Lied ciucs deutschen Knahen — there was an acknowledgment on the original draft of the poem, which is now in the British Museum, but the indebtedness was not mentioned when the poem was printed in The Morning Post and in The Annual Anthology. The original was written in ballad-metre. Coleridge pre- served the quatrain form and wrote, not "wooden hexa- meters," as Brandl* says, but a flowing anapaestic tetra- meter, with the common trochaic substitution in the first foot of several verses. The lines On a Cataract^ are an elaboration, rather than a translation of Stolberg's Unster- blicher Jilngling. Occasionally Coleridge was careful to acknowledge his obligations. Tell's Birthplace^' a fairly close translation in the original metres of Stolberg's Bci Wilhclm Tells Gchurts- statte ini Kanton Uri, was first printed in Sibylline Leaves (1817) as "Imitated from Stolberg." In the same collec- tion appeared the translation of Schiller's Dithyrambe as The Visit of the Gods, imitated from Schiller J Coleridge followed the original quite closely, save that he replaced ' Cottle, p. 96. 'Poet. Works, pp. 140, 616. ^ Ibid., pp. 141, 617. ♦ Brandl, pp. 263 : 248. ^Poet. Works, pp. 141-142, 618. ^Ibid.. pp. 142, 618. ''Ibid., pp. 142-143, 619. IMMEDIATE RESULTS. 15 Schiller's short seventh and eighth Hnes of each stanza by a single long line. Crabb Robinson recorded^ that Coleridge quoted Schiller's poem on November 15, 1810, and added: "He has since translated it." This evidently contradicts Campbell's date — ? 1799. It is probable that the same date, appended to Coleridge's translation of the first stanza of Mignon's Song from Goethe's IVilhehn Meister, is also much too early for that fragment. Mutual Passion^ appeared in The Courier in 181 1 and was reprinted in Sibylline Leaves as "a song modernized v^ith some additions from one of our elder poets." Camp- bell supposed that an English poet was meant, but, in lieu of anything better, accepted Professor Brandl's statement that the poem was an "imitation of the old-fashioned rhymes which introduce Minnesangs Friihling."' Dr. Garnett pointed out* that the poem was merely a revision of A Nymph's Passion from Ben Jonson's Underzvoods. About half of the verses of Jonson's poem have been "improved." The Water Ballad^ which appeared in The Athenceum in 1 83 1, was not included among Coleridge's poems until 1877. Its source was unknown, and Campbell printed it among the German translations, with the date — ? 1799. Hutchinson*^ in 1893 showed that it was a poor translation of E. de Planard's Barcarolle de Marie. In Gustav Mas- son's La Lyre Frangaise'' the original is dated 1826. Hutchinson suggests that the song may be the sole trace of stage. It is true that in 181 2 Coleridge thought of attempt- ing melodrama or comic opera f but he probably entertained no such plans in 1826 or thereafter. ' Diary, etc., I, p. 196. 'Poet. Works, pp. 143, 619. * Brandl, pp. 263 : 248. T The Athenceum, 1897, II, p. 885. Cf. ibid., 1898, I, 24. "; ^ Poet. Works, pp. 143, 619. ^The Academy, 1893, I, p. 481. ' Masson, op. cit., p. 189. * Crabb Robinson, Diary, I, p. 272. 1 6 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. Names^ translated from Lessing's Die Naynen, always appeared in Coleridge's works without acknowledgment to Lessing. Cottle, who printed a varying text of the epi- gram" recorded that Coleridge expressed his intention of translating the whole of Lessing. Cottle merely smiled and tells us that "Coleridge understood the symbol and smiled in return." The Translation of a Passage in Ottfried's Metrical Para- phrase of the Gospel'^ was a direct result of Coleridge's read- ings in Old High German. Professor Brandl* connected it with the night-scene in Christahel, and with the Christmas Carol which Coleridge afterwards wrote. Its relation to Christahel is based principally on the fact that a line of that poem, " To shield her and shelter her from the damp air." appears reflected and distorted in the lines of the transla- tion, " Blessed ! for she shelter'd him From the damp and chilling air." The fragment is unrhymed, but is otherwise suggestive of the irregular four-stressed verse of Christahel; beyond this there is no connection between the poems. The relation of the fragment to A Christmas Carol^ is quite evident and does not call for comment. In a letter of April 23, 1799, Coleridge sent the lines Something Childish hut very Natural to his wife. Freili- grath in 1852 was the first to show that the poem was an "imitation" of Wenn ich ein Voglein zvdr. The first two stanzas are a translation of the German, the third is a free paraphrase which loses the simplicity and charm of its orig- inal. ^Poet. Works, p. 144. See Notes & Queries, (Fifth) VIII ; (Sixth) VIII. ^Recollections, etc., II, p. 65. ^ Poet. Works, pp. 144, 620. ♦ Brandl, op. cit., pp. 262 : 247. (Not fully translated.) ^ Poet. Works, pp. 150, 624. ^ Ibid., pp. 146, 621. IMMEDIATE RESULTS. 1/ Coleridge translated a large number of epigrams' by Les- sing and other German writers. The original poems writ- ten in Germany are of no great importance. His Lines Written in the Album at Elbingerode, though not a poor poem, is distinctly inferior to the prose narrative of the tour. In Home-Sick, and The Day-Drcani he expressed his intense yearning to rejoin his family and friends. Two brief epi- taphs, On an Infant, complete the list. Compared to Wordsworth's achievement in the uncomfortable retreat at Goslar, the quality and extent of Coleridge's work are dis- appointing and plainly indicative of his declining interest in poetry. When Coleridge returned to England in July, 1799, he projected a vast hexameter epic on Mahomet and sought Southey's collaboration. The latter composed over a hun- dred verses for the epic ; Coleridge probably wrote only the fourteen lines" now printed with his poems. The proposed "Life of Lessing" was continually being postponed.^ In July, 1800, he expected to have the "Introduction" in press before Christmas; by October nothing had been done. Finally, in March, 1801, Southe>^ wrote: "Must Lessing wait for the Resurrection before he receives a new life?" Four years later Southey* informed William Taylor that, although Coleridge had made ample collection for the work, nothing was ever written. About January, 1800, a brief correspondence between Coleridge and Taylor took place. Coleridge called Taylor's attention to the statue of Burger which had been erected in Gottingen and mentioned the significant correspondence be- tween Wordsworth and himself in Germany on the merits ' Ibid., pp. 443-453- "^ Poet. Works, p. 139. 3 See Letters, I, p. 321 ; Life and Corres. of R. Southey, II, pp. 36, Z7, 40; Cottle's Reminiscences, pp. 319, 324. * Life and Corres., II, p. 139. 5 Robberds, Memoir of W. T., II, 75-76. 15 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. of Biirger, his Lenore, and Taylor's version of the poem.' He did not regard Burger as a great poet, but thought that he possessed some of the qualities which Wordsworth denied to him. At the end of February, 1800, Coleridge urged Southey to edit a "History of Universal Literature" and volunteered to write a chapter on German poetry for it.^ In the same letter, he made the first definite mention of the greatest memorial of his interest in German literature — his trans- lation of Schiller's Wallenstcin — an undertaking of such importance as to warrant its consideration apart from the trifles and fragments that represent the remainder of his translations from the German. "^ Ibid., I, pp. 294, 313, 318-321. Cf. Brandl, pp. 252: 239. This is appar- ently the only passage where Coleridge made a definite criticism of Lenore. His lack of enthusiasm detracts from its suggested influence. * Letters, I, p. 331. THE WALLENSTEIN TRANSLATION (1800). According to a persistent tradition for which Gilhrian^ appears to be responsible, Coleridge shut himself up in his lodgings in Buckingham Street, and after six weeks' dili- gent application to his task, produced his remarkable Wal- lenstein translation. Like so many other literary traditions, the present one is not substantiated by the facts; yet it is more easily explained than Professor Saintsbury's recent misstatement- that the U^allcnstcin translation was begun in Germany. Campbell-^ interpreted Coleridge's remark (in a letter of December 25, 1799) that he gave his "mornings to book- sellers' compilations" as evidence that he began to trans- late WaUcnstcin before the end of 1799; but Coleridge's more explicit reference to these compilations in a letter'* written during January, 1800, proves that he did not have WaUcnstcin in mind. Coleridge mentioned Schiller's plays for the first time in a letter^ to Southey on February 28, 1800, and as he exchanged frequent letters with Southey about that time, we are perhaps justified in the assumption that the translation was begun shortly before that date; otherwise it would have been mentioned in a previous letter. Coleridge was living at 21 Buckingham Street when he began the WaUcnstcin; but on March 17, Charles Lamb, who then lived at 36 Chapel Street, wrote: "I am living in a continuous feast. Coleridge has been with me now for nigh three weeks. ... He is engaged in translations 1 Gillman, Life of S. T. C, p. 146. See also Traill, p. 72; Brandl, pp. 271-272: 2S7 ; and M. B. Benton in Atlantic Monthly, LXXIV, p. 99. 2 Saintsbury, Short History of English Literature, p. 656. 3 Campbell, Memoir of S. T. C. p. 106. ♦Cottle, Reminiscences, p. 319. 5 Letters, I, p. 331. 19 20 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. which I hope will keep him this month to come."^ We do not know when the "continuous feast" came to an end; a month later (April 21) Coleridge was with Wordsworth at Grasmere, whence he wrote to Josiah Wedgwood: "To- morrow morning I send off the last sheet of my irksome, soul-wearying labour, the translation of Schiller."^ It is thus apparent that the task was accomplished in two months or less. No wonder that Coleridge wrote: "These cursed Plays play the devil with me. I have been writing from morning till night, and about half the night too, and yet get on too slowly for the printer."^ The Piccolomini was listed'* among the New Publications in April ; The Death of Wallenstcin was published in June — about the time that the original play was published in Ger- many. The circumstances under which a part of Schiller's trilogy appeared in an English translation before the orig- inal was published were first clearly set forth by Professor Brandl. Schiller wrote WaUenstein while the Kotzebue craze was at its height in London; there was consequently a good market in England for German plays. Even before Wallenstcin was completed, arrangements were made with Bell, the English publisher, for a translation to appear simul- taneously with the original. An attested copy (signed by Schiller on September 30, 1799) was received by Bell in November. Without communicating with either Schiller or the German publisher, Cotta, Bell sold the manuscript to the Messrs. Longman, who placed it in Coleridge's hands for translation. Schiller did not learn of its publication until September ; both translatc^r and publisher were un- known to him, until his correspondence with Cotta'' afforded a partial explanation of the somewhat complicated pro- cedure. ' Lamb's Letters, ed. Ainger, I, p. 115. * Canii)beirs Memoir, p. 112. 5 Ibid., p. 112. * Monthly Magazine, IX, 379-380. » Schillcrs Driefwechsel mit Cotta, pp. 396, 398, 405, 424. THE WALLENSTEIN TRANSLATION. 21 The manuscript used by Coleridge was carefully prepared by Schiller and differed in some respects from the text that has since become the standard. Freiligrath made a colla- tion of Coleridge's translation with the manuscript original, and concluded that, with the exception of a few trivial mis- takes, Coleridge had rendered a faithful translation.^ In the Preface to The Piccolomini Coleridge mentioned his in- tention of prefixing a "Life of Wallenstein " to the transla- tion and likewise confessed that he had dilated the original text in two or three short passages. An advertisement at the end of the volume announced, as in press. The Death of Wallenstein, also Wallenstein s Camp, with an "Essay on the Genius of Schiller." Neither of the last two ever ap- peared; but The Death of Wallenstein was published with an important Preface which accounted for the omission of the prelude, and presented some interesting criticism of Schiller's plays. The Wallenstein translation was unfavorably received by all the literary reviews.^ The least unkind was the Monthly Review, which called Coleridge "the most rational partisan of the German theatre whose labours have come under our notice." In reply to this characterization, the poet sent a sharp note^ to the editor of the review, disclaiming all inter- est in German drama and intimating that he did not admire Wallenstein itself. We know that after its publication Cole- ridge called it "a dull, heavy play"* and spoke of the "un- utterable disgust "'^ which he suffered while translating it. ^ Athenaum, 1861, I, pp. 633, 663, 797, and II, p. 284. In a recent valu- able article on Coleridge's Wallenstein-Uebersetsung (in Englische Studien, XXXI, 182-239), Paul Machule gives the results of a careful comparison of translation and original, showing numerous instances in which Coleridge departed, intentionally or otherwise, from the text. ^Monthly Mag., X, p. 611 ; Monthly Rev., XXXIII, n. s., 1 27-1 31 ; British Critic, XVIII, 542-545; CriticoJ Rev., XXX, n. s., 175-185- '^Monthly Rev., XXXIII, n. a., p. 336. * Cottle, Reminiscences, p. 324. ^Ibid., p. 325. 2 2 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. But a little later he wrote: "Prolix and crowded and drag- ging as it is, it is yet quite a model for its judicious manage- ment of the sequence of the scenes." ' After several years had passed, Coleridge held his IVallen- stein in higher esteem. He thanked Sir Walter Scott for quoting it with applause,^ and told Allsop' that the transla- tion was "a specimen of his happiest attempt, during the prime manhood of his intellect, before he had been buffetted by adversity or crossed by fatality." Notwithstanding Coleridge's failure to make IVallenstein popular in England, an anonymous translation of the Piccolomini's {sic) ap- peared* in London in 1805, but has thus far eluded the bibliographers. Carlyle was unable to procure Coleridge's IVallenstein in 1823-1824 while writing his Life of Schiller, but the original edition is no longer a rarity. Coleridge's translation has steadily grown in popular favor. Scott was probably the first to assert that it was a greater performance than the original — a rare tribute which still obtains in the recent literary histories by Professor Saintsbury* and Mr. Gosse.® There is at least one dis- sentient voice to Saintsbury's statement that "all but the Germans and some of them" regard Coleridge's version as greater than Schiller's original. John M. Robertson, in a singularly abusive essay^ on Coleridge, speaks of the "trans- lations, which bulk so largely were hardly worth reprinting and will certainly cease to be read by Englishmen before the originals, despite Professor Brandl's strange endorsement of the English claim, ascribed first to Scott, that Coleridge had improved on Schiller." > C. K. Paul's William Godwin, II, p. 8. ^See IVorks. ed. Shedd, II, 391-392. Cf. Guy Manncring, chaps. Ill and IV. 'Allsop Letters, Conversations, etc., p. 65. * See British Critic, XXV, 684-685 ; Monthly Rev., L, n. s., p. 329. * Saintsbury, A Short History of English Literature, p. 656. « Gosse, Modern English Literature, p. 284. ^Robertson, \'czc Essays Tozcard a Critical Method, p. t86. THE WALLENSTEIN TRANSLATION. 2$ The English version of Branch's "strange endorsement" — a hteral translation of the original — reads as follows : "One can understand the view taken by the English when they maintain that Coleridge's ' Wallenstein ' is superior to Schiller's. The wonder is why they occupied twenty years before arriving at that opinion." This appreciation of the English point of view does not necessarily imply its accep- tance by Professor Brandl. Again, the Wallcnstein, far from being "hardly worth reprinting," will always rank among the few accomplished projects in a life full of plans and visionary undertakings. The least that can justly be claimed for it is that it stands as high as the German version in the English reader's estimation. The reader who turns to the original to find greater dramas or a richer poetic treat- ment will be disappointed. In spite of Mr. Robertson's strictures, the Wallenstein will continue to be regarded as one of Coleridge's great achievements.^ 'An edition-de-luxe of Coleridge's Wallenstein appeared recently (1902). THE YEARS OF UNREST (i8ock-i8i6). In the autumn of 1800, Coleridge wrote the second part of Christabel. Lamb's reference^ to Coleridge's book, "that drama in which Got-fader performs," has been accepted as sufficient evidence that Coleridge possessed a copy of the 1790 Faust-Fragment; yet it is well to remember that the Prolog in Himmcl is not to be found in the Fragment. A writer in the Edinburgh Review^ fancied that he saw Faust influence in the metre and "wild unearthly interest" of the first part of Christabel. No one has undertaken to substan- tiate that influence; but Professor Brandl^ has pointed out Lenore influence in Christabel and The Ballad of the Dark Ladie. In both poems there is some ground for entertain- ing such a theory — notably in the characterization of Lady Geraldine and of the Dark Ladie ; but the resemblance is at best so slight that no stress can be laid upon it. The metre of Christabel has been vaguely attributed to Faust, and to "mediaeval German poetry."* When Cole- ridge published the poem in 181 6, he declared that the metre was not irregular, but was founded on a new principle; namely, counting the accents instead of syllables. This careless statement has led to some controversy. Coleridge assuredly knew that the metre of Christabel represented no new principle. His poem. The Raven, was written in the same metre, and was sent to The Morning Post in 1 798 with a letter stating that the poem must be read in recitative, as the second eclogue of Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar.^ In ' Lamb's Letters, ed. Ainger, I, p. 121. ^Edinburgh Rev., LXI, 146-147. ''Brandl, pp. 224:211 and 230:216. ♦T. S. Perry in Atlantic Monthly, XL, p. 135. ^ Poet. Works, p. 475. 24 THE YEARS OF UNREST. 2$ his Preface to The Death of Wallenstcin, Coleridge noted that the same metre was employed by Schiller in his prelude. Whatever may be the analogy between the metre of Christa- bel and German Kniittelvers, it is evident that Coleridge was thoroughly familiar with the irregularly four-stressed line — the so-called "doggerel tetrameter" — in our older lit- erature, and that there is no ground for referring his use of that metre to a direct German influence. Coleridge at first declared^ that he would not publish the letters descriptive of his German tour; yet, toward the end of i8cJD, he made several references^ to such a volume and spoke of it as "in the printer's hands." Of course, it did not appear. During the next few years of struggling and distress, he determined to devote the remainder of his life to metaphysics ; at the same time he devised various projects to satisfy his immediate needs. In 1802 he undertook a translation of Gessner's Der Erste Schiifer, wrote^ to Wil- liam Sotheby on July 19, that he had translated the First Book into 530 lines of blank verse and that the Second Book would be a hundred lines less. A month later he wrote that he had finished the translation, and that the publisher could have a copy at any time after a week's notice. Nothing more is heard of it; and apparently no copy was found among Coleridge's papers. About the same time* he pro- posed to translate Voss's Idylls into English hexameters, but nothing came of the project. In September, 1802, Coleridge's Hymn before Sunrise in the Vale of Chamoiini was printed in The Morning Post, accompanied by a note^ which would lead the reader to sup- pose that the verses had been composed at Chamouni. At 1 Letters, I, p. 317. ^ Ibid., I, pp. 337 and 342; also Cottle, Reminiscences, p. 327. ^Letters, I, pp. 369-372,376-378, 397- *Ibid., I, p. 398. 5 Max Forster, in The Academy, XLIX, 529-530, showed that this note was a free translation of the authoress' note to the original poem. 26 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. no time did Coleridge acknowledge his very evident indebt- edness to Frederike Brim's Chamoimy beym Sonnenauf- gange. The plagiarism was first pointed out by De Quincey^ shortly after Coleridge's death, and acknowledged by Henry Nelson Coleridge,^ who, however, denied any "ungenerous wish" on Coleridge's part to conceal the obligation. He continued : "The words and images that are taken are taken bodily and without alteration, and not the slightest art is used ... to disguise the fact of any community between the two poems." Dykes Campbell has well said"' that this excuse would have been fair, though hardly sufficient, if Coleridge had borrowed from Goethe or Schiller; in this case he was imitating an authoress of obscure, almost local, reputation. Coleridge expanded the poem to more than four times its original length, and even De Quincey in bring- ing the charge of plagiarism admitted that the poet had "created the dry bones of the German outline into the full- ness of life." The acknowledgment of his indebtedness would in no wise have detracted from the merit of his per- formance; but its intentional omission precludes the possi- bility of offering a satisfactory explanation of the poet's mo- tive. The next few years of Coleridge's life were full of sor- row. His trip to Malta and Rome (1804-1806) is as yet an obscure chapter in his biography. At Rome he met Ludwig Tieck for the first time. Upon his return he made arrangements for a course of lectures, which, after some delay, was delivered during the spring of 1808. From the meagre reports of these lectures preserved by Crabb Robin- son,* Professor Brandl detected the influence of Herder's Idecn zur Philosophic der Gcschichtc, of Kant's Kritik der Urthcilskraft, and of the Hanibnrgischc Dnimaturgie; ' Tait's Edinburgh Mag., September, 1834. « Preface to Table Talk (1835). See also Works. VI, p. 245. 'Poet. Works, p. 630. Also Memoir, p. 140, n. i. * Diary, I, pp. 171-172. See Works, IV., pp. 220-227. THE YEARS OF UNREST. 2/ thoui^h this indebtedness was not so definitely emphasized in the German text as in Lady Eastlake's translation. ' Coleridge may possibly have been indebted to Kant's Meta- physik der Sitten for his remarks on the education of chil- dren. He evidently drew from Schiller's Ueber naive und sentimentalise he Dichtung, and in one lecture followed Her- der's Kalligone so closely that Robinson's notes "read al- most like an index to the first chapter of that work." During the summer of 1808 Coleridge announced" that he w^as engaged upon a "very free translation with large additions, etc.. of the masterly work for which poor Palm was murdered." The work that caused Palm's martyrdom was the anti-Napoleonic pamphlet, Deutschland in seiner tiefsten Ernicderung; but Coleridge evidently referred to Ernst Moritz Arndt's Geist der Zeit which was written at the same time (1806) against Napoleon. In 1810 Cole- ridge declared' that the latter work had been delivered to him for translation, "under authority of one of the Royal Family"; that when he was "ready for the press," he in- formed the bookseller who had sent the volume, but he received no answer. A translation by P. W[ill] entitled Spirit of the Times appeared in 1808; but what has become of Coleridge's translation ? Would the translator of a work of over four hundred pages cast it aside, simply because his first letter brought no response from a bookseller? In the absence of further information, we must add this title to the list of Coleridge's projected works which Joseph Cottle* drew up with perhaps not the best intentions, but which is far from being exhaustive. Between March, 1809, and June, 18 10, Coleridge pub- lished at very irregular intervals his literary and political Aveekly, The Friend, which is now best known in the "rifac- J Brandl, pp. 316-317 : 296-298. ^Letters, II, p. 530. ^Essays on his Own Times, II, p. 670, note. ^ Cottle, Reminiscences, p. 347. 28 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. ciamento" prepared in 1818. The "literary amusements"' used by Coleridge to relieve the more serious essays are of some interest in the present connection. At the first "land- ing place" Coleridge related the good old story of the ap- pearance of the arch-fiend to Luther on the Wartburg. A writer in the Edinburgh Review (1835) insisted^ that Cole- ridge had plagiarized this incident from Goethe's Faust. Professor BrandP endorsed the claim, declaring that Cole- ridge reproduced the setting of the Stiidirzimmer, "uncere- moniously" substituted Luther for Faust and the devil in general for Mephistopheles in particular. Even a super- ficial comparison of Coleridge's words with the cited scene in Faust will reveal the fact that whatever resemblances exist between them are essential and in no wise peculiar to Coleridge's version of the time-honored tradition. Both Luther and Faust are studying the Bible by a midnight lamp in a chamber and to each a devil appears; beyond that there is no similarity between the two. At the second "landing-place," Coleridge related the har- rowing story of Maria Eleonora Schdning, the daughter of a "Nuremberg wire-drawer." He wrote: "The account was published in the city in which the event took place, and in the same year I read it, when I was in Germany, and the impression made on my memory was so deep, that though I relate it in my own language and with my own feelings, and in reliance on the fidelity of my recollection, I dare vouch for the accuracy of the narration in all important particulars." Southey^ regarded the story as the work of "some German horrorist," but Coleridge insisted* that the facts had been confirmed. Besides this story, the Second Landing-place contained the two descriptions, Christmas ivithin Doors in the North of Germany and Christmas out ^Edinburgh Rev., LXI, p. 147. ^Brandl, pp. 325 : 305. 'Knight, Memorials of Coleorton, II, pp. 87-88. * Letters, II, p. 555. THE YEARS OF UNREST. 29 of Doors, both rewritten from letters sent from Ratzeburg in 1799. Satyranes Letters appeared in the original Friend but were omitted in 1818 as they had been introduced into Biographia Literaria ( 1 8 1 7 ) . Crabb Robinson became personally acquainted with Cole- ridge in November, 1810, and from that date his Diary con- tains numerous interesting records* of Coleridge's critical remarks upon German authors and philosophers. Robinson probably attended the. whole series of Coleridge's 1811-12 lectures ; but the selections thus far printed from his volu- minous diaries do not mention all of them. Professor , BrandP emphasized Coleridge's indebtedness to Jean Paul throughout the first eight lectures; though Coleridge him- self declared/ that he did not see Paul's Vorschiile der Aes- thctik before 181 7. In the ninth lecture^ Coleridge said: "Yesterday afternoon a friend left a book for me by a German critic, of which I have only had time to read a small part; but what I did read I approved, and I should be dis- posed to applaud the work much more highly, were it not that in so doing I should, in a manner, applaud myself. The sentiments and opinions are coincident with those to which I gave utterance in my lectures at the Royal Institu- tion. It is not a little wonderful that so many ages have elapsed since the time of Shakespeare, and that it should remain for foreigners first to feel truly and to appreciate justly his mighty genius." The "friend" v^^as evidently ^ Robinson, and the book was August von Schlegel's Vorle- \\ siingcn iiher drmnatische Knnst und Litteratur, which had recently appeared. At that time Coleridge did not hesitate to bestow even extravagant praise^ upon Schlegel's criti- cism; in 1818, under the stress of the charge of plagiarism, he retracted some of the statements made in 1S11-12. ' Diary, I, pp. 195, 244, etc. "Brandl, pp. 334-340:316-321. ^Letters, II, p. 683. * Lectures, ed. T. Ashe, pp. 126-127. 5 Works, IV, p. 479. 30 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. Coleridge's attitude toward Goethe appeared inexplicable to Robinson. He recorded that Coleridge ''conceded to Goethe universal talent, but felt a want of moral life to be the defect of his poetry,"^ and subsequently that "Coleridge denied merit to 'Torquato Tasso' . . . adducing at the same time the immoral tendency of Goethe's works." ' However in August, 1812, Robinson read^ to Coleridge a number of scenes out of the new Faiist and 'Mie now ac- knowledged the genius of Goethe" as never before. At the same time, he regarded Goethe's want of religion and enthusiasm as an irreparable defect. It may have been Southey or Byron who suggested to the publisher Murray that Coleridge should be invited to trans- late Faust into English. In August, 1814, the proposal reached Coleridge indirectly (through Robinson and Charles Lamb), and the poet wrote a long letter* to Murray, deplor- ing the necessity of bringing his intellect to the market, but expressing a desire to attempt the translation, and likewise a translation of Voss's Liiise as soon as he learned the pub- lisher's terms. He also mentioned that he would need all of Goethe's works to prepare the "preliminary critical es- say." Murray offered Coleridge one hundred pounds for the translation and preliminary analysis, and hoped that the manuscript would be ready by November. Coleridge re- garded the offer as an "inadequate remuneration" for the work, but mentioned the terms upon which he was willing to undertake the work for a hundred guineas. Murray's an- swer has not been preserved, and there was no further cor- respondence on the subject. Almost two decades later* Coleridge recalled the negotiations and said that he "never put pen to paper as a translator of Faust." ' Diary, I, p. 195. ■ilbid., 1, p. 250. »Ibid.. I, p. 254- * Smiles, Memoir of John Miimiy, pp. 297-30 j. ^IVorhs. VI, p. 425. (Tabic Talk, February 16, 1833.) THE YEARS OF UNREST. 3 1 After the failure to reach an understanding with Murray, Coleridge devoted much of his time to the metaphysical magnmn opus which was "to contain all knowledge and proclaim all philosophy." His play, Remorse (1813) — a reworking of Osorio with a few interpolated passages from his Wallenstein — had been successfully produced. He now began his Biographia Literaria and the collected edition of his poems which afterwards appeared as Sibylline Leaves. Both of these were finished before the end of 181 5, though they were not published until two years later. Next he wrote his dramatic entertainment, Zapolya, and, by the aid of Lord Byron, arranged with Murray for the publication of Christabel. In April, 1816, shortly before the appear- ance of Christabel, Coleridge returned to London and began his long residence at the home of Dr. Gillman on Highgate Hill. THE SAGE OF HIGHGATE (1816-1834). The last period of Coleridge's life was mainly devoted to the development of his elaborate philosophical system, though he was constantly conceiving literary projects that were often interesting and important. His suggestion (1816) for the establishment of a "review of old books" was carried out four years later by others in the Retrospec- tive Review; similarly, in his proposal (1816) to undertake a periodical^ dealing with "the real state and value of Ger- man Literature from Gellert and Klopstock to the present year," he anticipated several foreign quarterlies by at least a decade. The appearance of Biographia Literaria and Sibylline Leaves brought Coleridge prominently forward once more. Present interest in the former centres in the critique on Maturin's tragedy, Bertram. In the course of his denunciation of the extravagant German school which Maturin had emulated, Coleridge paid sincere tribute to the influence of Lessing toward highest ideals of dramatic art. He wrote : " It was Lessing who first introduced the name and the works of Shakespeare to the admiration of the Ger- mans; and I should not perhaps go too far, if I add, that it was Lessing who first proved to all thinking' men, even to Shakespeare's own countrymen, the true nature of his ap- parent irregularities." Coleridge then proceeded to belabor Kotzebue and the minor exponents of the horrific drama in the style in which his own works were often assailed in the reviews. Save in this critique, there are few references^ to German authors in the Biographia Literaria. The most in- teresting contents of the work in this connection are Saty- rane's Letters and the account of the visit to Germany. ' See Campbell, Memoir, p. 224. ^li'''orks, III, pp. 378. 435. 474, etc. 32 THE SAGE OF HIGHGATE. 33 In 1817 Luclwig Tieck arrived in London and renewed his acquaintance with Coleridge. He confessed to Crabb Robinson' that he had "no high opinion of Coleridge's cri- tique" but admired his "glorious conceptions about Shakes- peare." Coleridge gave Tieck a letter^ of introduction to Southey, writing that as a poet, critic and moralist, Tieck stood next in reputation to Goethe. However, Coleridge was apparently unacquainted with Tieck's works, save Stern- hald's Wandemngen, which he criticized unfavorably as an imitation of Heinse's Ardinghello. '^ The 1818 course of lectures was the immediate cause of the imputed plagiarism from Schlegel. Coleridge at once declared in his own defense that his original utterances upon Shakespeare antedated those of Schlegel and that he had established and applied every principle of merit in Schlegel's work. * The latter claim was wholly unwarranted and can be explained only by the lecturer's exaggerated zeal in at- tempting to refute the charge. Coleridge was so embit- tered by the imputation that he rescinded a tribute which he had previously paid to German criticism and involved him- self in a flat contradiction. He sneered at Wordsworth for having "affirmed in print that a German critic first taught us to think correctly concerning Shakespeare,"^ thus for- getting or ignoring the fact that he himself had said prac- tically the same thing in his critique on Bertram,^ and still earlier in the ninth lecture of the 1811-12 series. Irrespec- tive of the Coleridge-Schlegel controversy, Wordsworth's remark was justified on the strength of what Lessing had written in his Litteraturbriefe and the Hamhurgische 1 Diary, I, pp. 360-366. ^Letters, II, pp. 670-671. 'ilbid., II, pp. 680-684. *Warks, IV, pp. 17, 457, etc. « Essay Supplementary to the Preface to Wordsworth's Poems, (1815). See Poet. Works of Wordsworth, ed. Morley, pp. 867-868. ^ Works, III, p. 557- 34 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. Dramaturgie before the other two critics were born. Cole- ridge evidently misinterpreted the utterance as a tribute to Schlegel and was accordingly incensed. Most critics will agree w^ith Sidney Lee^ that there is "much to be said for Wordsworth's general view." It is clear that Coleridge was unjust to Schlegel after the charge of plagiarism had been brought against him; but he could never have made a de- liberate denial of his obligation to Lessing. However, certain critics^ have gone too far in emphasiz- ing Lessing's "discovery" of Shakespeare, and have thus fostered the erroneous impression that Shakespeare was for- gotten in England until the Germans rehabilitated him in more than his former glory. Professor Korting^ warned us against a literal interpretation of Hettner's term "Die Wiedererweckung Shakespeare's," and Professor Mac- mechan has more specifically refuted* the statement in Phelps' English Romantic Movement, concerning the neglect of Shakespeare during the Augustan epoch. Such facts do not detract from the glory of German criticism, but are of more real service than the unreasonable claims of enthu- siasts in establishing the measure of its contribution to Shakespeare's fame. Sidney Lee° aptly summarized the matter in these words: "In its inception the aesthetic school owed much to the methods of Schlegel and other admiring critics of Shakespeare in Germany. But Coleridge in his Notes and Lectures and Hazlitt in his Characters of Shakes- peare's Plays are the best representatives of the aesthetic school in this or any other country." There is small probability of our ever arriving at a satis- factory knowledge of Coleridge's exact indebtedness to Schlegel." Sara Coleridge's edition of her father's lectures 'Lee, Life of William Shakespeare, pp. 333, n. i, and 344, n. i. *Herford, Age of Wordsworth, p. XXV ; Brandl, pp. 317 : 298. 'Korting, Grundriss der Gesch. der eng. Lit. (3d ed.), p. 309. * Modern Language Notes, IX, p. 148. 6 Lee, Life of Shakcsf^earc. p. M3- 'See Works, III. pp. xi-xlii and VI, pp. ::42-2S3. THE SAGE OF HIGIIGATE. 35 supplies the parallel passages from Schlegel in the notes, but our conclusions must be inevitably biassed by our point of view. There is nothing incredible in the idea that the two critics developed their material simultaneously and without any direct inter-relation. Lessing had struck the key-note of the new criticism; its development naturally followed in a certain loosely defined method, whether at the hands of Schlegel or Coleridge. At the same time, it is evident that after Schlegel's lectures came under Coleridge's notice, the latter did not disdain to borrow an occasional thought from the German critic without making acknowledgment of his obligation. Yet Professor Herford^ is hardly justified in calling Schlegel "Coleridge's master" — an enviable title that might have been more properly bestowed upon Lessing. In 1 8 19 Coleridge was invited to contribute to Black- wood's Magazine, but submitted nothing save his sonnet Fancy in Nubibus (which was partly taken from Stolberg's An das Meer) and some rambling literary correspondence^ which promised, among other things, a life of the poet Holty, with specimens of his poems translated and imitated in English verse. This promise was broken; but during 1823 Coleridge began to select the choice passages from the works of Archbishop Leighton, which, enriched with his own corollaries and notes, appeared two years later as Aids to Reflection and won for him a considerable following among English and American divines. Notwithstanding its slow sale, the book reached an audience including such men as Julius Hare, Frederick Denison Maurice and John Sterling, whose influence was widespread and significant in the religious history of the century. Carlyle, whose Life of Schiller and translation of Wilhelm Meister had won him a place in the Highgate circle, asserted that without Coleridge there would have been no Tractarian movement. ^ ^ Age of Wordsworth, p. yy. * See Works, IV, pp. 402-435. ^ Campbell, Memoir, pp. 268-269. 36 SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. Coleridge's declining years were crowned with a peace which he had not known before. He labored diligently and dictated long passages of his philosophical system to his faithful disciples. In 1828 he accompanied Wordsworth and his daughter on a six weeks' tour along the Rhine. ^ At Godesburg they met Niebuhr, Becker, August Schlegel and other "illuminati" of Bonn. Coleridge praised Schle- gel's Shakespeare translation and was in turn complimented upon the beauty and fidelity of his IVallcnstcin version ; but the meeting exerted no definite influence upon either critic. Coleridge's literary career was practically over and he did not expect to find any further stimulus for his philosophical labors. The invaluable Table Talk of the last twelve years, for which we are indebted to Henry Nelson Coleridge, records many interesting criticisms of German writers. Coleridge spoke highly of Fouque's Undine,^ and repeated his qualified appreciation of Goethe's Faust} He still admired Schiller more than Goethe, but gave first place to the "absolutely perfect" prose style of Lessing.* These critical fragments, uttered toward the close of a life teeming with many and varied activities, reveal at once how imperfect Coleridge's knowledge of German literature had been. He had not kept pace with its development, as he had not deemed it of suffi- cient importance for the ends which he had in view. His immediate interest had shifted to the German philosophers, since their writings were more nearly associated with his own great life-work. The magnum opus was destined never to appear. After the death of Coleridge in July, 1834, his literary executor, Dr. Joseph Henry Green, turned over the literary and criti- cal remains to Henry Nelson Coleridge, some theological ' Campbell, Memoir, p. 264. 2 Works, VI, p. 325- ^ Works, VI, pp. 421-424.