tion is the true one, may, I think, be collected from the references to Schelling, in pages 247 and 250. In both these places we find a couple of pages translated, with some changes and additions from the latter part of Schelling's Abhandlungen zur Erläuterung des Idealismus der Wissenchaftslehre. In neither place are we told that we are reading a translation. Yet that the author cannot be conscious of any intentional plagiarism is clear, from his mentioning Schelling's name, and, in the latter place, even that of this particular work. Here, again, I would conjecture, that the passages must have been transcribed from some old note-book; only in these instances, Schelling's name was marked down at the end of the first extract, and at the beginning of the second; and so the end of the first extract is ascribed to him, and he is cited at the beginning of the second.

"There is also another passage about the mystics, in pages 140, 141, acknowledged to be translated from a recent continental writer, which comes from Schelling's pamphlet against Fichte. In this case, Coleridge knew that he was setting forth what he had borrowed from another for he had not been long acquainted with this work of Schelling's, as may be gathered from his way of speaking of it in p. 153, and from his saying, in p. 150, that Schelling has lately avowed his affectionate reverence for Behmen. Schelling's pamphlet had appeared eleven years before; but, perhaps, it did not find its way to England till the peace; and Coleridge, having read it but recently, inferred that it was a recent publication. These passages form wellnigh the sum of Coleridge's loans from Schelling; and, with regard to these, on the grounds here stated, though I do not presume to rank myself among the foremost of his admirers, I readily acquit him of all suspicion of ungenerous concealment or intentional plagiarism.

66

A single word more. It is said that Mr. Coleridge was an unconscionable plagiary, like Byron." With * British Magazine, January, 1835.

+ Edinburgh Review, cxxiii. Of course, I have no intention of answering the criticisms or correcting all the mistakes of the

submission, nothing could possibly be more unlike. The charge against Lord Byron,-not his own affected one, but the real one, is this,-that having borrowed liberally from particular passages, and being deeply, although indefinably, indebted to the spirit of the writings of Wordsworth and Coleridge-yes, and of Southey, too-he not only made no acknowledgment—that was not necessary-but upon the principle of the odisse quem læseris he took every opportunity, and broke through every decency of literature, and even common manners, to malign, degrade, and, as far as in him lay, to destroy the public and private characters of those great men. He did this in works published by himself in his own lifetime, and what is more, he did it in violation of his knowledge and convictions to the contrary; for his own previous written and spoken admiration of the genius of those whom he so traduced and affected to contemn, was, and still is, on record; so that well might one of his in

Edinburgh Reviewer; but one of his remarks deserves notice. He quotes two passages, the one beginning "Negatively, there may be more of the philosophy of Socrates in the Memorabilia of Xenophon," &c. (vol. i., p. 16), and the other beginning-" Plato's works are logical exercises for the mind," &c. (vol. i., p. 48), and says they are contradictory. They might, perhaps, have been more clearly expressed; but no contradiction was intended, nor do the words imply any. Mr. C. meant in both, that Xenophon had preserved the most of the man Socrates; that he was the best Boswell; and that Socrates, as a persona dialoga, was little more than a poetical phantom in Plato's hands. On the other hand, he says that Plato is more Socratic, that is, more of a philosopher in the Socratic mode of reasoning (Cicero calls the Platonic writings generally, Socratici libri); and Mr. C. also says, that in the metaphysical disquisitions Plato is Pythagorean, meaning, that he worked on the supposed ideal or transcendental principles of the extraordinary founder of the Italian school.

And I cannot forbear expressing my surprise that the Edinburgh Reviewer-so imperfectly acquainted with Mr. Coleridge's writings as he evidently is-should have permitted himself the use of such language as that "Coleridge was an unconscionable plagiary," and that "he pillaged from himself and others;"-charges, which a little more knowledge of his subject, or a little less reliance on the already exposed misrepresentations of a magazine, would surely have prevented him from flinging out so hastily against the memory of a great man.—ED.

vulnerable antagonists say;—"Lord Byron must have known that I had the flocci of his eulogium to balance the nauci of his scorn, and that the one would have nihili-pilified the other, even if I had not well understood the worthlessness of both."*

Now, let the taking on the part of Coleridge be allowed, need I, after the preceding passage cited by Mr. Hare, expressly draw the contrast as to the manner? Verily, of Lord Byron, morally and intellectually considered, it may be said:

Si non alium late spirasset odorem,
Laurus erat.

It was in my heart to have adverted to one other point of a different and graver character, in respect of which the unfeeling petulance and imperfect knowledge of Mr. Dequincey have contributed to make what he says upon it a cruel calumny on Coleridge. But I refrain. This is not the place. A time will come when Coleridge's Life may be written without wounding the feelings or gratifying the malice of any one ;-and then, among other misrepresentations, that as to the origin of his recourse to opium will be made manifest; and the tale of his long and passionate struggles with, and final victory over, the habit, will form one of the brightest as well as most interesting traits of the moral and religious being of this humble, this exalted Christian.

-But how could this writer trust to the discretion of Coleridge's friends and relatives? What, if a justly provoked anger had burst the bounds of compassion! Does not Mr. Dequincey well know that with regard to this as well as every other article in his vile heap of personalities, the little finger of recrimination would bruise his head in the dust ?

Coleridge-blessings on his gentle memory!—Coleridge was a frail mortal. He had indeed his peculiar weaknesses as well as his unique powers; sensibilities

* Southey's Essays, Moral and Political. Vol. ii., Letter conerning Lord Byron.

that an averted look would rack, a heart which would have beaten calmly in the tremblings of an earthquake. He shrank from mere uneasiness like a child, and bore the preparatory agonies of his death-attack like a martyr. Sinned against a thousand times more than sinning, he himself suffered an almost life-long punishment for his errors, while the world at large has the unwithering fruits of his labours, his genius, and his sacrifice. Necesse est tanquam immaturam mortem ejus defleam; si tamen fas est aut flere, aut omnino mortem vocare, qua tanti viri mortalitas magis finita quam vita est. Vivit enim, vivetque semper, atque etiam latius in memoria hominum et sermone versabitur, postquam ab oculis recessit.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was the youngest child of the Reverend John Coleridge, Vicar of the parish of Ottery St. Mary, in the county of Devon, and master of Henry the Eighth's Free Grammar School in that town. His mother's maiden name was Ann Bowdon. He was born at Ottery on the 21st of October, 1772, "about eleven o'clock in the forenoon," as his father the Vicar has, with rather a curious particularity, entered it in the register.

He died on the 25th of July, 1834, in Mr. Gillman's house, in the Grove, Highgate, and is buried in the old churchyard, by the roadside.

ΑΙ ΔΕ ΤΕΑΙ ΖΩΟΥΣΙΝ ΑΗΔΟΝΕΣ

Lincoln's Inn, 11th May, 1835.

H. N. C.

TABLE-TALK.

DECEMBER 29, 1822.

Character of Othello-Schiller's Robbers-Shakspeare Scotch Novels-Lord Byron-John KembleMathews.

OTHELLO must not be conceived as a negro, but a high and chivalrous Moorish chief. Shakspeare learned the spirit of the character from the Spanish poetry, which was prevalent in England in his time.* Jealousy does not strike me as the point in his passion; I take it to be rather an agony that the creature whom he had believed angelic, with whom he had garnered up his heart, and whom he could not help still loving, should be proved impure and worthless. It was the struggle not to love her. It was a moral indignation and regret that virtue should so fall: But yet the pity of it, Iago !—O Iago! the pity of it, Iago !" In addition to this, his honour was concerned: Iago would not have succeeded but by hinting that his honour was compromised. There is no

ferocity in Othello; his mind is majestic and composed. He deliberately determines to die; and speaks his last speech with a view of showing his attachment to the Venetian state, though it had superseded him.

Schiller has the material Sublime ;† to produce an effect, he sets you a whole town on fire, and throws * Caballeros Granadinos,

Aunque Moros, hijos d'algo.-ED

+ This expression-" material sublime," like a hundred others which have slipped into general use, came originally from Mr. Coleridge, and was by him, in the first instance, applied to Schiller's Robbers.-See act iv., sc. 5.-ED.