Volume 2 — INDEX (continued 3)

[212] He is referring to a final effort to give up the use of opium altogether. It is needless to say that, after a trial of some duration, the attempt was found to be impracticable. It has been strenuously denied, as though it had been falsely asserted, that under the Gillmans’ care Coleridge overcame the habit of taking laudanum in more or less unusual quantities. Gillman, while he maintains that his patient in the use of narcotics satisfied the claims of duty, makes no such statement; and the confessions or outpourings from the later note-books which are included in the Life point to a different conclusion. That after his settlement at Highgate, in 1816, the habit was regulated and brought under control, and that this change for the better was due to the Gillmans’ care and to his own ever-renewed efforts to be free, none can gainsay. There was a moral struggle, and into that “sore agony” it would be presumption to intrude; but to a moral victory Coleridge laid no claim. And, at the last, it was “mercy,” not “praise,” for which he pleaded.

[213] The notes on Asgill’s Treatises were printed in the Literary Remains, Coleridge’s Works, 1853, v. 545-550, and in Notes Theological and Political, London, 1853, pp. 103-109.

[214] Admirers of Dr. Magee, 1765-1831, who was successively Bishop of Raphoe, 1819, and Archbishop of Dublin, 1822. He was the author of Discourses on the Scriptural Doctrines of the Atonement. He was grandfather of the late Archbishop of York, better known as Bishop of Peterborough.

[215] I am indebted to Mr. John Henry Steinmetz, a younger brother of Coleridge’s friend and ardent disciple, for a copy of this letter. It was addressed, he informs me, to his brother’s friend, the late Mr. John Peirse Kennard, of Hordle Cliff, Hants, father of the late Sir John Coleridge Kennard, Bart., M. P. for Salisbury, and of Mr. Adam Steinmetz Kennard, of Crawley Court Hants, at whose baptism the poet was present, and to whom he addressed the well-known letter (Letter CCLX.), “To my Godchild, Adam Steinmetz Kennard.”

[216] See Table Talk, August 14, 1832.

[217] So, too, of Keats. See Table Talk, etc., Bell & Sons. 1884, Talk for August 14, 1832. Table p. 179.

[218] “The sot would reject the poisoned cup, yet the trembling-hand with which he raises his daily or hourly draught to his lips has not left him ignorant that this, too, is altogether a poison.” The Friend, Essay xiv.; Coleridge’s Works, ii. 100.

[219] The motto of this theme, (January 19, 1794), of which I possess a transcript in Coleridge’s handwriting, or perhaps the original copy, is—

The theme was selected by Boyer for insertion in his Liber Aureus of school exercises in prose and verse, now in the possession of James Boyer, Esq., of the Coopers’ Company. The sentence to which Coleridge alludes ran thus: “As if we were in some great sea-vortex, every moment we perceive our ruin more clearly, every moment we are impelled towards it with greater force.”

The essay was printed for the first time in the Illustrated London News, April 1, 1893.

[220] This letter, which is addressed in Coleridge’s handwriting, “Mrs. Aders, favoured by H. Gillman,” and endorsed in pencil, “S. T. C.’s letter for Miss Denman,” refers to the new edition of his poetical works which Coleridge had begun to see through the press. Apparently he had intended that the “Epitaph” should be inscribed on the outline of a headstone, and that this should illustrate, by way of vignette, the last page of the volume.

[221] Of the exact date of Sterling’s first visit to Highgate there is no record. It may, however, be taken for granted that his intimacy with Coleridge began in 1828, when he was in his twenty-third year, and continued until the autumn of 1833,—perhaps lasted until Coleridge’s death. Unlike Maurice, and Maurice’s disciple, Kingsley, Sterling outlived his early enthusiasm for Coleridge and his acceptance of his teaching. It may be said, indeed, that, thanks to the genius of his second master, Carlyle, he suggests both the reaction against and the rejection of Coleridge. Of that rejection Carlyle, in his Life of Sterling, made himself the mouth-piece. It is idle to say of that marvellous but disillusioning presentment that it is untruthful, or exaggerated, or unkind. It is a sketch from the life, and who can doubt that it is lifelike? But other eyes saw another Coleridge who held them entranced. To them he was the seer of the vision beautiful, the “priest of invisible rites behind the veil of the senses,” and to their ears his voice was of one who brought good tidings of reconciliation and assurance. Many, too, who cared for none of these things, were attracted to the man. Like the wedding-guest in the Ancient Mariner, they stood still. No other, they felt, was so wise, so loveable. They, too, were eye-witnesses, and their portraiture has not been outpainted by Carlyle. Apart from any expression of opinion, it is worth while to note that Carlyle saw Coleridge for the last time in the spring of 1825, and that the Life of Sterling was composed more than a quarter of a century later. His opinion of the man had, indeed, changed but little, as the notes and letters of 1824-25 clearly testify, but his criticism of the writer was far less appreciative than it had been in Coleridge’s lifetime. The following extracts from a letter of Sterling to Gillman, dated “Hurstmonceaux, October 9, 1834,” are evidence that his feelings towards Coleridge were at that time those of a reverent disciple:—

“The Inscription [in Highgate Church] will forever be enough to put to shame the heartless vanity of a thousand such writers as the Opium Eater. As a portrait, or even as a hint for one, his papers seem to me worse than useless.

“If it is possible, I will certainly go to Highgate, and wait on Mrs. Gillman and yourself. I have travelled the road thither with keen and buoyant expectation, and returned with high and animating remembrances oftener than any other in England. Hereafter, too, it will not have lost its charm. There is not only all this world of recollection, but the dwelling of those who best knew and best loved his work.” Life of Sterling, 1871, pp. 46-54; Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a Narrative, by J. Dykes Campbell, pp. 259-261; British Museum, add. MS. 34,225, f. 194.

[222] The following unpublished lines were addressed by Coleridge to this young lady, a neighbour, I presume, and friend of the Gillmans. They must be among the last he ever wrote:—

The whole adapted from an epigram of Claudius by substituting Thura for mella, the original distich being in return for a Present of Honey.

Another on the same subject by S. T. C. himself:—

Literal translation: Always, Eliza! to me things of sweet odour thou presentest. For whatever thou presentest, I fancy redolent of thyself.

[223] Philip Van Artevelde.

[224] Sir Henry Taylor.