work which Coleridge distinctly admits to be translated, not however from Schelling, but from a "contemporary writer on the Continent." See Biog. Lit., pp. 140, 141, where upwards of a page and a half are copied (omitting one insignificant interpolation) from Schelling's Darlegung, pp. 154, 155. But even here he cannot admit his obligation plainly and directly; the terms in which he introduces the extract are exceedingly curious, and very much in his usual vein. See Biog. Lit., p. 139, where he thus writes, in reference to p. 140, 141 :" While I, in part, translate the following observations from a contemporary writer of the Continent, let me be permitted to premise, that I might have transcribed the substance from memoranda of my own, which were written many years before his pamphlet was given to the world; and that I prefer another's words to my own, partly as a tribute due to priority of of pub publication, but still more from the pleasure of sympathy in a case where coincidence (Ital. in orig.) only was possible." Now, how Coleridge could reconcile with ordinary faith his statement, that a paragraph, consisting of forty-nine lines, to which his own contribution was six, was only in part translated from a foreign work-how he could outrage common sense, and the capacities of human belief, by saying that he might have transcribed " the substance of it from memoranda of his own, written many years before Schelling's pamphlet was given to the world" - how he could have the cool assurance to tell us that he "prefers another's words to his own"-not, mark you, because these words belong to that other man, and not to him-but as a tribute due to priority of publication-and how he could take it upon him to say that in this case nothing more than coincidence was possible, (except on the ground that it was impossible for any human being to write any thing but what he had written before!) - how he could do all these things, entirely baffles our comprehension. In B. L., pp. 141-143, are to be found two other long sentences, cu riously transmogrified from the Darlegung, p. 156. In B. L., p. 146, Coleridge's obser vation about the Noumenon of Kant, is taken from Schelling's Phil. Schrift. pp. 275, 276. His words here are certainly not exactly Schelling's; but he adds nothing to the original remarks from which his observation is borrowed. For the latter part of his sentence, see also Transc. Id. p. 114. In B. L., p. 147, we next read"All symbols, of necessity, involve an apparent contradiction." This is translated from the Phil. Schrift. p. 276. We now pass on to the opening of Chap. X. B. L., p. 157. It commences in italics thus-the introductory words being put into the mouth of an imaginary reader : "Esemplastic!-the word is not in Johnson, nor have I met with it elsewhere !" " Neither have I," rejoins the author, Coleridge; "I constructed it myself from the Greek words, εις ἑν πλαττειν, i. e. to shape into one." To this we, taking up the cause and character of the imaginary reader, reply" We beg your pardon, sir; but you did nothing of the sortyou met with it in Schelling's Darlegung, p. 61. You there found the word In-eins-bildung-"a shaping into one"-which Schelling or some other German had literally formed from the Greek, -εις ἐν πλαττειν, and you merely translated this word back into Greek, (a very easy and obvious thing to do,) and then you coined the Greek words into English, merely altering them from a noun into an adjective." The word is likewise to be met with in Schelling's Vorlesungen, † p. 313. Such, we will lay our life upon it, is the history of Coleridge's neology in the instance of the word " esemplastic." Readers are generally passive enough mortals in the hands of writers; but an author who ventures upon questionable freaks like this, must lay his account with sometimes catching a Tartar among them. We now pass on to what is perhaps the most singular case of plagiarism in the whole book. We find that the whole of p. 246, and the greater part of p. 247, B. L., are translated from the Phil. Schrift. pp. 327, 328, omit * Darlegung des wahren Verhältnisses der Natur-philosophie zu der verbesserten Fichteschen Lehre. Tubingen: 1806. + Vorlesungen über die Methode des Academischen Studium. ting three interpolations, which rather detract from than add to the sense of the paragraph. The whole paragraph is occupied with a description of the kind of mind which is unfitted for philosophical speculations; and concludes (B. L., p. 247) in these terms : "To remain unintelligible to such a mind (exclaims Schelling on a like occasion) is honour and a good name before God and man." Exclaims Schelling on a like occasion!-why, this is the very occasion upon which Schelling utters that exclamation-the whole passage (with the slight exceptions mentioned) being a verbatim translation from him!! Can any thing beat that? this is surely plagiarism outplagiarised. Coleridge puts forth certain remarks as his own, and clenches and corroborates them by an exclamation said to be uttered by Schelling up. on a like occasion. It is then discovered that not only the clenching clause, but that the whole paragraph to which it refers, is Schelling's; and that this is precisely the occasion, upon which, by way of adding force to his own remarks, he gives vent to the exclamation quoted. What can this mean? is it humour, is it irony, is it dishonesty, or is it simple carelessness on the part of Coleridge? These are questions "admitting of a wide solution," and yet well worthy the attention of any student of the eccentricities of human nature. Passing on to the middle of p. 250, B. L., wefall in with translations from Schelling of much greater bulk than any that we have yet met with. At this place Coleridge thinks "it expedient to make some preliminary remarks on the introduction of POSTULATES into philosophy." Accordingly, he makes these remarks-and every word of them, running through pp. 250, 251, 252, 253, and part of 254, is taken verbatim from Schelling, with the exception of the last sentence, (top of p. 254,) which is somewhat altered from the original: vide Phil. Schrift., pp. 329, 330, 331, 332. It must be admitted that at the beginning of this extract Coleridge introduces the parenthesis ("see Schell. Abhandl. zur Erlaüter. des Id. der Wissenschafslehre.") But would not a reader naturally deduce, from this reference, merely the inference that Coleridge was here referring to Schelling in support of his own views, and not literally translating and appropriating the German's? Besides, if a reader had written to the Continent for this work, under the title here given to it, it is next to impossible that he could ever have procured it. For this title denotes a tract buried among a good many others in Schelling's Phil. Schrift., which is the name that ought to have been given to the work referred to, if the reader was to derive any benefit from the information, or was to be put in the way of consulting the original source. Another very long translation from Schelling commences near the foot of p. 254, B. L., and is continued through pp.255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261. Throughout these, six interpolations and variations occur; but they are so very unimportant that we may say the whole of the pages are faithfully transcribed from the Transc. Id., p. 1 to p. 9. In continuation of his translation, left off near the foot of p. 261, B. L., Coleridge, without a break, copies the remainder of this page and pp. 262, 263, as far as the word "entities," from the Phil. Schrift., pp. 273, 274. We must remark, however, that a pretty long interpolation of his occurs in p. 262, B. L. We have also to remark, that the quotation in p. 263, B. L., Doctrina per tot manus tradita tandem in vappam desiit, is employed by Schelling in Phil. Schrift., p. 212. At p. 264, et seq., B. L., certain Theses occur, which are mainly taken from Schelling, though here the sentences of the original are so garbled, mutilated, and transposed, as to be in general quite unintelligible. Some of the smaller disjecta membra have probably escaped us: but we may particularize the second sentence of p. 268, B. L., as occurring in the Transc. Id., p. 48. Then the whole of Theses vii. viii. (B. L., pp. 269, 270, 271) are taken bodily from Phil. Schrift., pp. 223, 224, 225, with some slight variations that add nothing to the sense. In Thesis ix., the first and fifth sentences are copied nearly verbatim from Transc. Id., pp. 26, 27. Two full pages of Thesis x. are copied from Transc. Id., pp. 27, 28, 29-a few alterations being introduced, which we may say, in Hibernian fashion, are decidedly improvements for the worse. The last instance, with which we conclude this strange catalogue of plagiarisms from Schelling, occurs in B. L., p. 279, the greater part of which page is to be found in the Phil. Schrift., pp. 203, 204. On looking back over the result of our researches, we perceive that we have traced the palpable presence of Schelling in thirty-three of Coleridge's was not at all in consequence of the considerations conveyed in this letter that he stopped short. The way in which we account for the stoppage is this. Interspersed throughout the works of Schelling, glimpses and indications are to be found of some stu pages. From these we will deduct theory on the subject of the two-rather more than the quantity he admits to have been translated in part from a contemporary writer of the Continent; "-thus leaving thirty-one pages faithfully transcribed, either wholly or partially, from Schelling. We perceive that the continuous whole pages so transcribed, amount to thirteen; that the continuous half-pages so transcribed amount to six; and that the smaller passages under half a page interspersed throughout the work, amount to twelve. These latter may be calculated, on a very moderate computation, at three pages. So that we have the extraordinary number of nineteen full pages, copied almost verbatim from the works of the German philosopher, without one distinct word of acknowledgment on the part of the transcriber an event in the history of literature altogether unprecedented, we believe; and in reference to the party chiefly concerned, we think we may add, quite unsuspected until now. Are our readers aware how the first volume of the Biographia Literaria ends? They must understand that the whole of it is intended to stand merely as an introduction to some grand theory of the "Imagination," discovered and to be propounded by Mr Cole. ridge. Near the end of the volume, however, when our curiosity is on the point, as we imagine, of being gratified, the work suddenly breaks down in the middle of a sentence, in consequence of Coleridge's receipt of aletter from a friend-evidently written by himself-informing him that the world is not yet ripe for his discovery; that his "Treatise on Real-idealism," (the very name by which Schelling's system is known,) " holding the same relation in abstruseness to Plotinus, as Plotinus does to Plato," would be too much for ordinary readers; and accordingly, " in consequence of this very judicious letter," Coleridge allows his work to break down as we have said. Now, our view is, that it imagination. These shadowy intimations, we think, Coleridge expected to be able to catch and unriddle; but after proceeding a certain length in his work, he found himself unable to do so. When he came to try, he found himself incompetent to think out the theory which the German philosopher had left enveloped in shadows, and yawning with many hiatuses; and not being able to swim in transcendental depths without Schelling's bladders, and Schelling's bladders not being sufficiently inflated to support him here, he had nothing else for it but to abandon his work altogether, and leave his readers in the lurch. That is our explanation of the matter. Had Schelling been more explicit and tangible on the subject of the imagination, Coleridge would have been so too. Had Schelling fully worked out his theory, Coleridge would have done the same ; and we should have had the discovery of the German thinker paraded, for upwards of twenty years, as a specimen of the wonderful powers of the English philosopher. Before taking leave of the Biographia, we must plead, in a very few words, the cause of another German philosopher, pointed out to us by a friend, as having been very scurvily treated by Coleridge. In Vol. I., p. 107, we find the name "Maasse" (Maasz, it should be) once mentioned by Coleridge, without however any commentary upon it, or any hint that he lay under the smallest obligation to the philosopher of that name. On looking, however, into this author's work, we find that all the real information and learning put forth in Biog. Lit., Chap. V., is stolen bodily from him. In B. L., pp. 100, 101, et seq., a considerable show of learning is exhibited on the subject of the association of ideas; and of course the reader's impression is, that Coleridge is indebted for the learning here displayed to nothing but his own researches. But no such thing -he is indebted for it entirely to Maasz. He found all the quotations, and nearly all the observations connected with them, ready-made to his hand in the pages of that philosopher. "Long before," says Coleridge, p.100, "either Hobbes or Des Cartes, the law of association had been defined, and its important functions set forth by Melanchthon, Amerbach, and Ludovicus Vives, more especially the last." Maasz says precisely the same thing, p. 343. Then follows (p. 101) Coleridge's account of the distinction which Vives makes between Imaginatio and Phantasia. This distinction is distinctly pointed out by Maasz, p. 344. Then follow four quotations from Vives -all of which are to be found in Maasz, pp. 344, 345. In a word, all Coleridge's learning bearing upon Melanchthon, Amerbach, and Vives, is to be found in Maasz. Passing on to Coleridge's remarks on what Aristotle says on the subject of association, we find that here, too, his coincidences with Maasz are a good deal more than coincidences. In B. L., p. 102, we read that "Aristotle's positions on this subject (the association of ideas) are unmixed with fiction." Maasz, p. 345, tells us that Aristotle is (ganz aufs reine gekommen) "as pure as possible" in his doctrines upon this point. Then Coleridge's observation (p. 103) respecting Aristotle's use of the word κινησις, in which he informs us that Aristotle uses this word " to express what we call ideas or representations;" and that when he uses it to denote " material motion," he invariably annexes to it "the words εν τοπῳ οι κατα τοπον," - all this is to be found distinctly brought forward by Maasz, pp. 321, 324; and finally, a good deal of what follows in B. L., pp. 103, 104, may be traced to Maasz, p. 325, et seq. * Versuch über die Einbildungskraft. Halle and Leipzig: 1797. To return for one moment to Schelling. On looking through Coleridge's Literary Remains, we find that he is not contented with purloining Schelling's philosophy, but he must also plunder him of his Aesthetics. Lecture XIII., " On Poesy or Art," (vide L. R., vol. i. p. 216, et seq.,) is closely copied, and many parts of it are translated from Schelling's very eloquent "Discourse upon the Relation in which the Plastic Arts stand to Nature," (vide Phil. Schrift., 343, et seq.) What will Coleridge's admirers say, upon finding it thus proved that even his notions upon poetry and the fine arts in general are mainly drawn from the profound wells of the German philosopher-that his diamonds, no less than his fuel, are dug up from Schelling's inexhaustible mines! We have seen, then, that Coleridge is indebted to Schelling for most of his philosophy, and for some of his profoundest views on the subject of the great art in which he most excelledthe art of poetry; but to whom is he indebted for some of the brightest gems in his poetic wreath itself? We answer, that among other sources he is indebted in particular to Schiller and to Christian Count Stolberg, some of whose most exquisite productions he has appropriated without one word of acknowledgement. His obligations to Frederica Brun for many of the leading ideas of his "Hymn before Sunrise in the vale of Chamouni," have been already pointed out elsewhere, and are admitted, (see Preface to his Table Talk, p. L.,) and therefore we need say no more on that subject. We proceed to particularize three other instances of the grossest plagiarism committed upon the works of the two authors just mentioned; which cases have never, we believe, been exposed till now a very extraordinary circumstance, in so far, at least, as Schiller is concerned. When we first read, a good many years ago, (we think in an annual,) these verses of Coleridge's in which he at once describes and exemplifies the Homeric hexameter and the Ovidian elegiac metre, we remember being quite petrified with astonishment and delight. It appeared to us that words-particularly in the instance of the hexameter and pentameter distich -had never before been made to perform so exquisite and miraculous a feat. This, thought we, is certainly absolute perfection in the kind of thing which is attempted. The lines are these : "THE OVIDIAN ELEGIAC METRE DE SCRIBED AND EXEMPLIFIED. "TO A CATARACT. "Unperishing youth! "In the hexameter rises the fountain's Thou leapest from forth silvery column; In the pentameter aye falling in melody back." What was our surprise and mortifi cation, when, some years afterwards, we found that, in both instances, these lines had been copied verbatim from Schiller. We confess we even felt somewhat indignant at the imposition that had been played off upon us; and besides, we thought it very shameful that Schiller should have been defrauded of his own property, and of his own proper honours. As a translation, Coleridge's verses are certainly very admirable, because, tallying almost word for word with the original, they preserve exactly the effect which it produces: but that is no justification of his concealment. Perhaps he thought that he had improved so much upon the original that he was entitled to claim the verses as his own. But this we deny; - his lines on the Homeric metre are not quite so good as Schiller's; his lines on the Ovidian distich are as good, (with the exception of the word "silvery," which is inferior to "flüssige,") but not one whit better than Schiller's. But that German readers may judge of this for themselves, we subjoin the original verses.* Coleridge's translation may be seen in his own Works, vol. ii. p. 146, Ed. 1836. We first read the following verses in the Quarterly Review, vol. li. p. 26; they are now embodied in Coleridge's Works, vol. ii. p. 131, Ed. 1836. The cell of thy hidden nativity! The cradle of the strong one; The gathering of his voices- the rock, Which is lisp'd evermore at his slumberless fountain. There's a cloud at the portal, a spray- At the shrine of his ceaseless renewing: ling of heaven May be born in a holy twilight." The Quarterly Review informs us * Der epische Hexameter: - Hinter dir siehst du, du siehst vor dir nur Himmel und Meer." Das Distichon "Im Hexameter steigt des Spring-quells flüssige Säule: He is -SCHILLER'S Werke, Vol. I., p. 262. Ed: Stuttgart und Tubingen: 1827. Let the classical reader take up Ovid's Heroides or Tristia, and he will find in every page illustrations of the manner in which the hexameter breaks, as it were, and falls back in the pentameter-thereby adding a most exquisite grace to the rhythm. secret genius of the metre appears to consist in this play. Here are one or two instances taken from Penelope's Letter to Ulysses : "Troja jacet certe, Danais invisa puellis. Vix Priamus tanti totaque Troja fuit." "Quando ego non timui graviora pericula veris? Again Again "Sive quis Antilochum narrabat ab Hectore victum The |