337 NOTES. (a) p. 1. T now seems clear to me, that my Father here alludes IT 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 of "ten or cleven;" unless his writing was wrongly copied. It does not appear that he lectured on Shakspeare in 1801, or 1802; but in March, April, and May of 1808, and I doubt not in February likewise, he lectured on Poetry at the Royal Institution. Schlegel's lectures, the substance of which we now have in the Dramaturgische Vorlesungen, were read at Vienna that same Spring; but they were not published till 1809, and it is mentioned in an Observation prefixed 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 till 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 1803 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 Dramatische Kunst und Litteratur were published) thus in a few sentences sums up the character of Hamlet. In Hamlet," &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 his view of the characteristic merits of Shakspeare, and to general principles of criticism, established and applied by him in 1808, and still earlier in conversation, not to his Lectures of 1818, fragments of which are contained in this volume. I think, however, that when in 1819 my father wrote the record prefixed to the Notes on Hamlet (see p. 206.) 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 had intertwined themselves with his own thoughts, especially in one part of his subjectthe Greek Drama-by the time they were to be delivered in 1813. Had he been fully conscious of this. common caution would have induced him to acknowledge 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 whereever 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 borrowing on 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 avoid 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 Schelling's fine discourse Ueber der bildenden Künste (On the Imaging Arts). For example, Schelling observes respecting the Niobe of ancient sculpture, that "the expression is softened down by the very nature of the subject, since Sorrow, by transcending all expression, annuls itself, and thus that Beauty which could not have been lifesomely preserved, 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 fifth) Lecture, (vol. i. p. 90, 2nd edit.) Der Schmerz entstellt den überirdischen Adel der Züge um so weniger da er durch die plötzliche Anhaufung der Schläge, der bedeutenden Fabel gemüss, in Erstarrung überzugehen scheint. In proof of this also I would refer to Schelling's remarks on the difference between the nature and range of Sculpture and of Painting, (Phil. Schrift. pp. 375-6) with those of Schlegel (vol. iii. p. 121) Lecture xii. (now xxii.) Painting," says Schelling, “ represents not by corporeal things, but by light and colour,through an incorporeal, and, in some measure, spiritual medium." 66 Its peculiar charm," says Schlegel of the same, "consists in this, that it makes visible in corporeal objects what is least corporeal, namely, light and air." Read also Schelling's parallel of the Ancient mode of thought with the Plastic Art, of the Modern with the Pictorial; (Phil. Schrift. pp. 3-16-7) and compare with Schlegel, Lecture i. (vol. i. p. 9) and Lect. ix. now end of Lect. xvii.—(vol. 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. 347-8-9) and compare with the doctrine of Schlegel on the same points, Lect. i. (vol i. pp. 6-7)— Lect. xii. (now xxii.) vol. iii. p. 146. I make no doubt that these likenesses, or rather samenesses, 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 Munich, Oct. 12, 1807, half a year before Schlegel read his Lectures at Vienna, it was not published among the author's collected Philosophical 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 characters 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 established. GREEK DRAMA. This Essay certainly contains a great deal which is to be found in Schlegel's Drum. Vorlesungen. The borrowed parts were probably taken from memory, for they seldom follow the order of composition in the original, and no one paragraph 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 late editor of Coleridge's Remains, dated April 26, 1838, pointed out, in a broad way, the parts of Schlegel's Lectures to which he considered Mr. C. to be indebted in this composition. His 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. Vol. i. pp. 14, 15, 89; 97, 98; 103-4; 270, 272-3; 329, 30, et seqq.-332; 334, 6, 7, 8. (1) p. 11. For the following sentences to the end of the paragraph see Schlegel's vith (now xi th) Lect. vol. ii. pp. 15, 16, 2nd edit. (2) 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 Wirklichkeit) 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. Ib. 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 So wenig aber to in Frey heit setzt. (5) p. 17. Parts of the substance of this paragraph may be found in Lect. vii. (now xii.) pp. 59, 60, 61. The commencing sentences agree with Schlegel's remarks in Lect. vi. (now xii.) p. 26.— Die alte Komödie hat mit der athenischen Freyheit zugleich geblühen, &c. 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 xvii.) vol. ii. p. 156. Wir sehen hier cine nene Bestimmung. &c. But neither thought nor language is identical in the two passages. (6) p. 18. For great part of this paragraph see the same (vii th now xiiith) Lecture, pp. 61, 2, 3, 4. 56. (7) p. 19. See Lect. iii. (now iv.) vol. i. p. 62. and p. "is the ideal (8) p. 20. "The Chorus," says Schlegel, 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. ix. (now xvii.) vol. ii. p. 165: and p. 168. (9) p. 21. (10) p. 21. (11) p. 22. See Lect. iii. (now iv.) vol. i. pp. 90, 91-2. "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, |