an external object, which explains many stories of persons seeing themselves lying dead. Bishop Berkeley once experienced this. He had the presence of mind to ring the bell, and feel his pulse; keeping his eye still fixed on his own figure right opposite to him. He was in a high fever, and the brain image died away as the door opened. I observed something very like it once at Grasmere; and was so conscious of the cause, that I told a person what I was experiencing, whilst the image still remained.

Of course, if the vulgar ghost be really a shadow, there must be some substance of which it is the shadow. These visible and intangible shadows, without substances to cause them, are absurd.

JANUARY 4, 1823.

Character of the age for Logic.-Plato and Xenophon.-Greek Drama. -An Homeric Expression.*-Kotzebue.—Burke.—Goldsmith.*Snuff-Rogues.*-Omne ignotum.*—Plagiarists.

THIS

HIS is not a logical age. A friend lately gave me some political pamphlets of the times of Charles I. and the Cromwellate. In them the premisses are frequently wrong, but the deductions are almost always legitimate; whereas, in the writings of the present day, the premisses are commonly sound, but the conclusions false. I think a great deal of commendation is due to the University of Oxford for preserving the study of logic in the schools. It is a great mistake to suppose geometry any substitute for it.

Negatively, there may be more of the philosophy of Socrates in the Memorabilia of Xenophor than in Plato: that is, there is less of what does not belong to Socrates; but the general spirit of, and impression left by, Plato, are more Socratic.1

1 See May 8, 1824. Mr. Coleridge meant in both these passages, that Xenophon had preserved the most of the man Socrates; that he was the best Boswell; and that Socrates, as a persona dialogi, was little more than a poetical phantom in Plato's hands. On the other hand, he

In Eschylus religion appears terrible, malignant, and persecuting: Sophocles is the mildest of the three tragedians, but the persecuting aspect is still maintained: Euripides is like a modern Frenchman, never so happy as when giving a slap at the gods altogether.

Kotzebue represents the petty kings of the islands in the Pacific Ocean exactly as so many Homeric chiefs. Riches command universal influence, and all the kings are supposed to be descended from the gods.

I confess I doubt the Homeric genuineness of daкρvóεv γελάσασα. It sounds to me much more like a prettiness of Bion or Moschus.

The very greatest writers write best when calm, and exerting themselves upon subjects unconnected with party. Burke rarely shows all his powers, unless where he is in a passion. The French Revolution was alone a subject fit for him. We are not yet aware of all the consequences of that event. We are too near it.

Goldsmith did everything happily.

You abuse snuff! Perhaps it is the final cause of the human nose.

A rogue is a roundabout fool; a fool in circumbendibus.

2

Omne ignotum pro magnifico. A dunghill at a distance sometimes smells like musk, and a dead dog like elderflowers.

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.-H. N. C.

· ὡς εἰπὼν, ἀλόχοιο φίλης ἐν χερσὶν ἔθηκε

παῖδ ̓ ἑόν· ἡ δ ̓ ἄρα μιν κηώδεϊ δέξατο κόλπῳ,

δακρυόεν γελάσασα.—Iliad. Z. vi. 482. Η. Ν. C.

2 The quotation is always so printed, but Tacitus wrote it-omne ignotum pro magnifico est.

Plagiarists are always suspicious of being stolen from,as pickpockets are observed commonly to walk with their hands in their breeches' pockets.

JANUARY 6, 1823.

St. John's Gospel.-Christianity.—Epistle to the Hebrews.-The Logos.Reason and Understanding.

ST. JOHN had a two-fold object in his Gospel and his Epistles, to prove the divinity, and also the actual human nature and bodily suffering, of Jesus Christ,-that he was God and Man. The notion that the effusion of blood and water from the Saviour's side was intended to prove the real death of the sufferer originated, I believe, with some modern Germans, and seems to me ridiculous: there is, indeed, a very small quantity of water occasionally in the præcordia: but in the pleura, where wounds are not generally mortal, there is a great deal. St. John did not mean, I apprehend, to insinuate that the spear-thrust made the death, merely as such, certain or evident, but that the effusion showed the human nature. "I saw it," he would say, "with my own eyes. It was real blood, composed of lymph and crassamentum, and not a mere celestial ichor, as the Phantasmists allege."

I think the verse of the three witnesses (1 John, v. 7) spurious, not only because the balance of external authority is against it, as Porson seems to have shown; but also, because, in my way of looking at it, it spoils the reasoning.

St. John's logic is Oriental, and consists chiefly in position and parallel; whilst St. Paul displays all the intricacies of the Greek system.

Whatever may be thought of the genuineness or authority of any part of the book of Daniel, it makes no difference in my belief in Christianity; for Christianity is within a man, even as he is a being gifted with reason; it is

associated with your mother's chair, and with the firstremembered tones of her blessed voice.1

I do not believe St. Paul to be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Luther's conjecture is very probable, that it was by Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew. The plan is too studiously regular for St. Paul. It was evidently written during the yet existing glories of the Temple. For three hundred years the church did not affix St. Paul's name to it; but its apostolical or catholic character, independently of its genuineness as to St. Paul, was never much doubted.

The first three Gospels show the history, that is, the fulfilment of the prophecies in the facts. St. John declares explicitly the doctrine, oracularly, and without comment, because, being pure reason, it can only be proved by itself. For Christianity proves itself, as the sun is seen by its own light. Its evidence is involved in its existence. St. Paul writes more particularly for the dialectic understanding; and proves those doctrines, which were capable of such proof, by common logic.

St. John used the term ỏ Aóyos technically. PhiloJudæus had so used it several years before the probable date of the composition of this Gospel; and it was commonly understood amongst the Jewish Rabbis at that time, and afterwards, of the manifested God.

2

Our translators, unfortunately, as I think, render the clause Tρos Tòv Oεòv,2 “with God;" that would be right, if the Greek were σὺν τῷ Θεῷ. By the preposition πρὸς in this place, is meant the utmost possible proximity, without confusion; likeness, without sameness. The Jewish Church understood the Messiah to be a divine person. Philo expressly cautions against any one supposing the Logos to be a mere personification, or symbol. He says, the Logos

It is possible that this remark of Coleridge would not seem so ridiculous if we could read the context. Or if he had said here "Religion," for instance, rather than "Christianity."

2 John, ch. i. v. 1, 2.-H. N. C.

is a substantial, self-existent Being. The Gnostics, as they were afterwards called, were a kind of Arians, and thought the Logos was an after-birth. They placed "Aßvooos and Zyn (the Abyss and Silence) before him. Therefore it was that St. John said, with emphasis, év áрxã ĥv ỏ Móyos -"In the beginning was the Word." He was begotten in the first simultaneous burst of Godhead, if such an expression may be pardoned, in speaking of eternal existence.

The Understanding suggests the materials of reasoning: the Reason decides upon them. The first can only say,This is, or ought to be so. The last says,—It must be so

APRIL 27, 1823.

Kean.-Sir James Mackintosh.—Sir H. Davy.—Robert Smith.- Canning. -National Debt.-Poor Laws.

KEA

EAN is original; but he copies from himself. His rapid descents from the hyper-tragic to the infracolloquial, though sometimes productive of great effect, are often unreasonable. To see him act, is like reading Shakspere by flashes of lightning. I do not think him thorough-bred gentleman enough to play Othello.

Sir James Mackintosh is the king of the men of talent. He is a most elegant converser. How well I remember his giving breakfast to me and Sir Humphry Davy, at that time an unknown young man, and our having a very spirited talk about Locke and Newton, and so forth! When Davy was gone, Mackintosh said to me, "That's a very extraordinary young man; but he is gone wrong on some points." But Davy was, at that time at least, a man

I have preserved this, and several other equivalent remarks, out of a dutiful wish to popularize, by all the honest means in my power, this fundamental distinction; a thorough mastery of which Mr. Coleridge considered necessary to any sound system of psychology; and in the denial or neglect of which he delighted to point out the source of most of the vulgar errors in philosophy and religion. The distinction itself is implied throughout almost all Mr. C.'s works, whether in verse or prose; but it may be found minutely argued in the " Aids to Reflection," p. 206, &c., 2nd edit., 1831.-H. N. C.