« PredošláPokračovať »
(c) p. 1.
IT. now seems clear to me, that my Father here alludes
to a course of lectures delivered in 1808, and I think it most probable that, from some momentary confusion of mind, he wrote “sixteen or seventeen" instead otten or eleven;" unless his writing was wrongly copied. It does not appear that he lectured on Shakspeare in 1801, or 180; but in March, April, and Jay of 1803, and I doubt not in February likewise, le lectured on Poetry at the Royal Institution. Schlegel's lectures, the substance of which we now have in the Drumuturgische Vorlesungen, were read at l'ienna that same Spring; but they were not published till 1809, and it is mentioned in an Observation pretised to part of the work printed in 1811, that the portion respecting Shakspeare and the English Theatre was re-cast after the oral delivery.
(b) p. 3. My Father appears to confound the date of publication with that of delivery, when he affirms that Schlegel's Dramatic Lectures were not delivered tiil two years after his on the same subjects: but the fact is, as has been mentioned in the last note, that those parts of Schlegel's Dram. Vorlesung, which contain the coincidences with my Father, in his view of Shakspeare, were not orally delivered at all-certainly not in the Spring of 1808, but added when the discourses were prepared for the press, at which time the part about Shakspeare was almost altogether re-written.
Few auditors of Mr. Coleridge's earliest Shakspearian lectures probably now survive. None of those who attended his lectures before April in 1303 have I been able to discover or communicate with. But I have found this record in Mr. Payne Collier's edition of Shakspeare, vol. vii. p. 193.
Coleridge, after vindicating himself from the accusation that he had derived his ideas of Hamlet from Schlegel, (and
we heard him broach them some years before the Lectures Ueber Drumatische Kunst und Litteratur were published) thus in a few sentences sums up the character of Hamlet. '" lo llamlet," &c. Introduction to Humlet.
(c) p. 11. It can hardly be necessary to remind any attentive reader, that my Father's declarations respecting in. dependence of Schlegel relate to bis view of the characteristic merits of Shakspeare, and to general principles of cri. ticism, estublished and applied by him in 1908, and still earlier in conversation, not to his Lectures of 1818, frag. ments of which are contained in this volume. I think, however, that when in 1819 my father wrote the record prefixed to the Notes on Ilamlet (see p. 200.) he could hardly have been aware how many of the German critic's sentences he had repeated in those latter lectures, how many of his illustrations have intertwined themselves with bis own thoughts, especially in one part of his subject — the Greek Drama — by the time they were to be delivered in 1813. Had he been fully conscious of this, cominon caution would have induced him to acknowledye what he had obtained from a book which was in the hands of so many readers in England. I take this opportunity of giving notice that I shall make reference to Schlegel where. ever I find thoughts or expressions of my Father substantially the same as his, though I am by no means sure, that in all of these passages there was a borrowiny ou the part of the former. Any one who has composed for the press and has united with this practice habits of accurate revision and an anxiety to aroid both the reality and the appearance of plagiarism, will bear witness to the fact, that coincidences, both in the form and manner of thought, especially in criticism, are of the commonest occurrence. Several striking coincidences may be found between Schlegel in his Dramatic Lectures and Schelliug's fine discourse L'eber der bildenden Künste (On the Imaging Arts). For example, Schelling observes respecting the Niobe of ancient sculpture, that “the espression is softened down by the very nati:re of the subject, since Sorrow, by transcending all expression, annuls
itself, and thus that Beauty which could not have been life. somely preserred, is saved from injury by the commencing. torpor.” Compare this with Schlegel's interesting criticism on the Niobe at the end of his third (now tifih) Lecture, (vol. i. p. 90, 2nd edir.) Der Schmer: entstellt den über. irdischen Adel der Züge um so weniger du er durch die plüt liche Inhuufung der Schlüge, der bedeutenien Fuvel yemüss, ive Erstarrung überzugehen scheint. In proof of this also I would refer to Schelling's remarks on the ditterence between the nature and range of Sculpture and ot Painting, (Phil. Schrift. pp. 373-0) with those of Schlegel (vol. iii. p. 121) Lecture xii. (now xxii.) Painting,” says Schelling, presents not by corporeal things, but by light and colour,through an incorporeal, and, in some ineasure, spiritual me. dium." “ Its peculiar charm,” says Schlegel ot the same, “ consists in this, that it makes visible in corporeal objects what is least corporeal, namely, light and air." Read also Schelliny's parallel of the Ancient mode ot' thought with the Plastic Art, of the Modern with the Pictorial; (Phil. Schriti. pp. 33-10.7) and compare with Schlegel, Lecture i. (vol. i. p. 9) and Lect. ix. - now end of Lect. xvii.--( pol. ii. p. 172.) Read Schelling on Imitation of the Ancients, and on the Principle of Life as the source of essential character in Art, (Phil. Schrift. pp. 317-8-9) and compare with the doctrine of Schlegel on the same points, Lect. i. (vol i. pp. 1-7) Lect. xii. (now xxii.) vol. iii. p. 1.10.
I make no doubt that these likenesses, or rather sumenesses, of thought and language were matter of coincidence rather than adoption on the part of the later promulgater, because, although the Oration was delivered at Junich, Oct. 12, 1807, half a year before Schlegel read his Lectures at l'ienna, it was not published among the author's collected Philosophicul Writings till 1809. I cannot help here expressing my surprise at the unconscientious way in which positive charges of dishonest plagiarism are too often made and propagated. Not unfrequently such charges are brought forward on grounds which the accusers themselves have never properly examined, and of the true nature of which they are
absolutely ignorant. Such inaccuracy in matters nearly concerning the churucters of men indicates a want of truthfulness and consideration of what is due to others far more reprehensible than any case of simple plagiarism, ever so clearly establisbed.
GREEK DR... This Essay certainly contains a great deal which to be found in Schlegel's Drum. Vorlesungen. The borrowed paris were probably taken from memory, for they seldom follow the order of composition in the original, and no one para. graph is wholly transferred from it. I must not omit, on this occasion, to acknowledge my obligations to Mr. Heath, formerly of Trinity Coll. Cambridge, who, in a letter to the lale editor of Coleridge's Remuins, dated :Ipril 20, 18:38, pointeil out, in a broad way, the parts of Schlegel's Lectures to which he considered Jr. C. to be indebted in this composition. Ilis references are to the first edition, and for the sake of those who may possess that and not the second, to which my notes refer, I give them here. lol. i. I'p. 1.4, 1.), 89; 97, 93; 103-44; 270, 279-3; 3?!', 30, et seqq.-332 ; 334, 6, 7, 8.
(1) p. 11. For the following sentences to thie end of the paragraph see Schlegel's vith (now sith) Lect. vol. ii. pp. 15, 16, 2nd edit. (9) p. 12.
• The old comedy, however, is as independent and original a kind of poetry as tragedy; it stands on the same elevation with it; that is to say, it goes as far beyond a conditionate reality (bedingte Il'irklichkeit) into the domaiu of free-creating fancy.” Vol. ii. p. 17. “ The comic Poet transports his personages into an ideal element as truly as the tragic.” Transl. Ih. p.
21. (3) p. 13. From “ Tragedy is poetry to the end of the following paragraph is freely translated from Ib. pp. 17, 18, 19.
(4) p. 15. The reader may compare the last two paragraphs with Ib. pp. 19, 20 : from Su wenig aber to in Frey. heit setzt.
(5) p. 17. Päris of the substance of this paragraph may be found in Lect. vii. (now sii.) pp. 59, 60, 61. The commencing sentences agree with Schlegel's remarks in Lect. vi. (now sii.) p. 26.- Die alte Komödie hat mit der athenischen Freyheit zugleich geblühen, Sc. The observation that the moral law is the ground in tragedy, may be compared with Schlegel's teaching in Lect. vii. (now xiii.) vol. ii. p. 60. Der höchste tragische Ernst, &c.: and in Lect. ix. (now svii.) vol. ii. p. 1.50. Wir sehen hier cine nene Bestimmung. &c. But neither thought nor language is identical in the two passages.
(0) p. 18. For great part of this paragraph see the same (rii th now riiith) Lecture, pr. 01, 2, 3, t.
(7) p. 19. See Lect. iii. (now iv.) vol. i. p. 6%, and p. 56. (8) p. 20.
“ The Chorus,” says Schlegel, is the ideal. ized spectator:"ii. 80. Lect iii. (now v.) Compare also the next paragraph on the Chorus in connection with unity of place with remarks on the same subject in Lect. i.s. (now xvii.) vol. ii. p. 105 : and p. 108.
(9) p. 21. See Lect. iii. (now iv.) vol. i. pp. 90, ?1-2. (10) p. 21. Ib. 07-8.
(11) p. 29. “ Rousseau,” says Schlegel in his first Lecture, “ recognised the contrast in Music, and shewed that rhythm and melody was the ruling principle of ancient as harmony is of modern music. On the imaging arts, (bildenden Künste) Hemsterhuys made this ingenious remark, that the old painters are perhaps too much of sculptors, modern sculptors too much of painters. This touches the very point with which we are concerned : for, as I shall unfold more fully in the sequel, the spirit of collective ancient art and poetry is plastic, as that of the modern is picturesque.” Tr. vol. i. p. 9. On the same subject hear Schelling. “By this opposition not only may we explain the necessary predominance of Sculpture in Antiquity, of Painting in the modern world; the former being thoroughly plastic in its mode of thought, whilst the latter makes even the soul a passive organ of higher revelations; but this also may be inferred,