"Naturphilosophie" and Christian Orthodoxy in Coleridge's View of the Trinity Author(s): Raimonda Modiano Source: Pacific Coast Philology,

Vol. 17, No. 1/2 (Nov., 1982), pp. 59-68 Published by: Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1316395 . Accessed: 09/07/2013 09:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Pacific Coast Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NA TURPHIL OSOPHIE AND CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY IN COLERIDGE'S VIEW OF THE TRINITY

RAIMONDA MODIANO From his earliestattempts to develop a systemof natural philosophy thata properexplanationof the laws of thephysical Coleridgerecognized oflifeultimately on a viableconcept universe and oftheemergence depended thepersonal amiss oftheAbsolute, God ofChristianity. Thisis whathefound in the works of German Naturphilosophen and what in his estimatewas singularlyresponsiblefor the most flagranterrors in their doctrines. the forexample,attempted to burna candleat bothends,bygiving Schelling, selfand naturean equal share in originating the same seriesof productive acts. In declaring naturea self-subsistent inevitably slipped entity, Schelling into pantheism, makingGod "a part of the universe, nay,a productof the he same."' HeinrichSteffens faredno better when,in following Schelling, declaredthe onenessof natureand the Absolute.2 Even Kant,althoughnot beyond physicsin his analysis of the forcesof nature,came adventuring dangerouslyclose to pantheismwhen, in MetaphysicalFoundationsof Natural Science, he explained the permanenceof matterwithoutany reference to spirit.3 For Coleridgetheonlycorrect oflife answerto a theory was a transcendent and theonlyalternative to pantheism was a system deity, in thetheistic doctrine ofthetrinity.4 Butthetrinity was not firmly grounded forColeridge a convenient article of he could faith, always merely something turnto whenever he wantedto asserthis superiority the German vis-a-vis philosophersby virtue of his clean religiousviews. Rather, the trinity forColeridgethe keyto philosophicthinking as such. It is the represented doctrine of the trinity,he wrote, "that connects Christianity with philosophy,"making religion as indispensable to the philosopher,as is "to themoralist and psychologist."5 theconcept ofthe redemption Through a securebasis fordynamicphilosophy trinity, Coleridgehopedto provide by itwithin thesphere ofChristian hedevoted a taskto which bringing theology, manyyearsof "incessant Thought,and . .. positivelabor."6 Critics have generallyregardedwith skepticismColeridge'sefforts to German and the Christian to synthesize philosophy dogma. According Bate, "central thathad blocked"Coleridge'smagnumopus was "thatof difficulty the'dynamic of nature withtheChristian dualismof reconciling philosophy' God and thecreatedworld."7 Wellek'spositionon thissubjectis wellknown: in orderto make roomforhis religious bends views,Coleridgeincorrigibly and misrepresents theradicaltheories of Germanphilosophers. "It is a truly Wellek writes, "that he stillassertssubjective Coleridgeaninconsistency," idealismside bysidewith intheTriuneGod and thehistorical a belief creedof It would be fruitless in to that some instances deny Coleridge's Christianity."8 out of transcendental idealismintoreligious the exhortations flights betray

59

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Butone shouldnot ofanalytic ofbelief rather thantherigor thinking. urgency his sacrifice thatColeridge wouldautomatically concludefrom suchinstances values. Christian in thefaceofcontending allegianceto Germanphilosophy to whichColeridge have missedis theextent What Wellekand othercritics themcompatible to make in order tenets Christian fundamental reshaped inColeridge's ofdynamic Thisis mostevident with theprinciples philosophy. Christian of thetrinity. In Coleridge'shandsthismostorthodox conception but have that critics a fact is rendered unorthodox, acknowledged, dogma the source of Coleridge's without being able to pin down thoroughly unconventional handlingof the doctrine.The source is actuallynot that on the trinity statements obscure. Coleridge'smost prominent appear in and of idealism German of with various concerned concepts writings to Boehmeand Oken,as well in particular. His marginalia Naturphilosophie as numerous notebook entries, indicate that Coleridge extracted.a fromthe Naturphilosophen, especially philosophicalmodel forthe trinity whose conceptionof the Absolutehas as muchbearingon fromSchelling,9 of theChurchFathers.We as thedoctrines Coleridge'snotionof thetrinity need to reexaminethe claim, oftenmade by Coleridgeand reiterated by is directly based on thetrinity thata system critics, opposedto thepantheistic is ofthetrinity of theGermanphilosophers. Coleridge'sconception systems "repeatedin a finer dynamicphilosophy tone."'1 essentially consistsin his Coleridge'smain revisionof the concept of the trinity triadof Father,Son, and the to thetraditional element additionof a fourth ofform Coleridgeclaims,God is an absoluteunity Holy Ghost. Originally, within himself, and essence,subjectand object,havingthegroundof reality all of his ideas and attributes."Coleridge and possessingsimultaneously or Identity all-inclusive namesthisstateof undifferentiated, unityProthesis God and with theabsoluteWill,theabsoluteSubjectivity, and equatesitwith God in his consciousness an "immanent as divineground.'2 Energy" Through in "a three-fold to himself hisexistence manifests Act,totalineachand one in theSon, and theHolyGhost.The Father theFather, represents all,"begetting the the"I Am in thatI Am." This marks act of self-assertion, God's primary in terms, in divine relative of consciousness, or, Coleridge's subjectivity stage theSon God also begets of "Ipseity."But in theveryact of self-affirmation, who standsfortheLogos, theWord,the"deitasobjectiva," complementing intheFather.'3 Coleridge whatat theoppositeend is the"deitassubjectiva" of God's gesture of divine on this creativity. phase placed greatemphasis a in of how model is an the Son himself to know important through coming and self-concious and becomea fully mancan attainan idealself lowersphere moral being. The Son is for God what anotherhuman being,"intensely the"essential Symbol" similar, yetnotthesame,"is forman.'4He represents or "real Image of God," the"sole adequate,Idea in God, ofGod."'5 Finally, to full notin time)to bring God expendsa secondEnergy synthesis (in order, and the therelatively and Alterity, theFatherand theSon, Ipseity subjective of the essence who Ghost the represents Holy creating objective, relatively love and of community.'6 to trinitarian contribution theology Coleridgefeltthathismostimportant and God as person. God as ground between was thedistinction (theProthesis)

60

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

insistence on thisdistinction his was meant to protect Ostensibly, Coleridge's from he often an error in theworksoftheNaturphilosophen, system spotted thatofplacingpolarity intheAbsolute, ofrepresenting and implicitly namely the Deityas capable of development, nottherefore, as a perfect beingwhose ideas are fullyrealized.Schelling,forexample, like Fichte,describedthe eternalact of self-consciousness, of whichis the Absoluteitself, as a strife ofsubjectand object,unlimited As and limited activity. opposingtendencies, in theGodhead, longas Coleridgeadheredto thenotionofan original unity that he did not deviatefromthe prior to all division,he was confident of God as "actus purissimus scholasticdefinition sine ulla potentialitate."'7 for This view,repeatedby Coleridgein manywritings, has beenresponsible the obfuscation of a most important source of Coleridge'sconceptof the in theAbsolute In fact,thedifferentiation between an original unity trinity. to Schelling. and a triad of subsequentactivitiesbelongs,among others, claims the an undivided that Absolute is unity, Schelling,too, originally the and he distinguishes neither essencenor formbut both simultaneously, which is a phase of identity(A=A) from the moment of synthesis, intosubjectand object. reconstituted afterthe Absolutedividesitself unity of the There is a remarkablesimilarity betweenColeridge'sdescription oftheseriesof "three-fold Act" ofdivinecreativity and Schelling's unfolding to a from a stateofidentity acts by meansof whichthe Absoluteprogresses and whichitperceives itself as dividedintosubject stateof antithesis, during to itsoriginal to a stateof synthesis by whichit returns object,and finally 8 unity. and categories As late as 1830Coleridge was stillusinga four-fold pattern of dynamicphilosophyto renderhis view of the trinity.19 In effect, for selfof the act of God's creation is an attaining Coleridge trinity consciousness.In order to know himself, God generateshis own object, theAbsolutemust, forthe abandoninghis originalunity just as in Schelling the "Without sake of self-knowledge, abandon itsstateof original identity.20 "in whichand by whichGod is manifest to himself," Son," Coleridgewrote, he would not attainexistence "in the same sensethata circlewouldnot be withouta center& a circumference."21 The separationbetweenGod the Fatherand theSon generates interaction a flow ofenergy. This and as itwere, of Schelling's viewthattheAbsoluteis essentially again showstheinfluence an act, not an entity, and a ceaseless movement fromidentity to antithesis from antithesis back to identity. is clearly to theidea ofa attracted Coleridge self-conscious God, to a "God ofaction,"as Boulgerwellobserves, dynamic, "knownby eventsrather thanas a subjectto be contemplated."22 If it is true,then,thatColeridgeborrowed from the Naturphilosophen a modelforthetrinity, howdoes hissystem overcome thepantheistic dynamic fromwhichthe Germanphilosophers could not escape? pitfalls evidently the Moreover,can we take for grantedColeridge'sclaim that in revising traditional term hemerely the conceptofthetrinity byaddinga fourth upheld scholastic viewof thedeity? Some commentators havebeenunimpressed by Coleridge's meddling with the trinity, suspectingsome foul heretical deviousness on Coleridge's part. Shedd, for example, believes that

61

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

would have been "moresuccessful, Coleridge'sview of thetrinity certainly more continuousand progressive," if he had not committed the errorof theschemeoftheTriadforthatoftheTetrad, inhisconstruction.... "leaving The error inthisscheme inthis:itsassumption consists ofan aboriginal Unity - of a and in theordernature, a Trinity existing primarily by itself, before . . . whichis not in its own natureeither triune or groundforthe Trinity but is merely theimpersonal base from which theTrinity is personal, proper evolved.In thisway,wethink, a process ofdevelopment is introduced intothe Godhead whichis incompatible withits immutable ."23 perfection.... Shedd omits fromthis summaryan important featureof Coleridge's ofthetrinity hehopedto remove theimpersonality ofan conception bywhich with theAbsoluteWill.Coleridge original ground.He equatedtheProthesis was wellaware thatsomething called "Ground"can be easilyconfused with substance unlessitis designated as Will.As hewrote to Spinoza's amorphous Edward Coleridgein 1826,"the supremeReality,if it were contemplated fromthe Absolute Will, whose essenceis to be causativeof all abstractly wouldsinkintoa Spinozistic whenGod is seen Reality, Deity."24 Bycontrast, as AbsoluteWill,he appearsfrom thevery as a self-sufficient and beginning self-conscious different froman impersonal being,substantially groundin nature. Willthus ensuresthe personeity of God priorto its manifestation theFather, theSon, and theHoly Ghost.Shedd is,however, in through right thata pattern ofdevelopment is inherent inColeridge's stating representation of thetrinity. This is clearly theresult of Coleridge'suse of categories from Butthequestionas to whether thenotionofa dynamic dynamic philosophy. conflicts withthescholastic ofGod as a pure deity automatically conception act without is notso easilysettled. any potentiality Coleridgemaynot have been entirely thatthetwoviewsare notincompatible. If wrongin thinking God's idea ofhisownperfection includes a processofdevelopment, and ifthis idea is fully thenGod stillretains hisidentity as "a pureact without realized, All thatis required definition is thatGod's anypotentiality." bythescholastic ideas be alwaysrealor"intensely actual"and thathis"Thoughts" be "anterior to all buthimself alone."25 ofthedynamical he scheme Furthermore, byvirtue affirms thecompleteness ofGod's creative act. Nothing more uses,Coleridge can be added or substracted from thefour phasesthatmarkGod's attainment of self-consciousness. God's manifestation of his dynamic does not energy therefore theidea ofhis"immutable Here was preclude perfection." Coleridge wellserved ofSchelling's theemphasis bya characteristic philosophy, namely on a process of continuousactivityin the Absolute,a process,which, is carriedout in conformity witha rigidmodel of interactive nonetheless, unalterable categoriesthat is both completeand, in Schelling'sestimate, by time. A moretenuouspointregarding oftheconceptofthe revision Coleridge's concerns his claimthat,unlikethe Naturphilosophen, he was able to trinity avoid theerror ofplacing intheAbsolute. The difficulty here is posed polarity to describe the by Coleridge's use of the terms "Thesis-Antithesis" betweenthe Fatherand the Son. How does this relationship relationship differ from one ofpolarity, suchas thepolarity between subjectand objectin Schelling'ssystem? Coleridgewas well aware of this problemand in his
62

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

variouselaborations of thetrinity modelhe he triedto redefine thedynamic borrowed from the Naturphilosophen.Instead of polarity,Coleridge thedistinctness ofeach component ofthetrinity and hecarefully emphasized in presenting the relationship avoided a language of oppositionor strife theFatherand theSon. Polarity, between as a modelofexplaining themotor of all activity both in the Absolute and in nature,had for Coleridgeone seriousflaw.Opposites,as he often stated,are alwaysofthesameessence.26 and mind,man and God, thebodyand the Hence,subjectand object,nature soul, when viewed as polar entities,tend to merge into an amorphous that thateradicates their indistinctness For Coleridgea system individuality. abused polarity sacrificed diversity, inevitably qualitiessuch as distinctness, and the essentialdisparatenessof various orders of being. (Despite his forthe dynamiclaw of "ExtremesMeet," Coleridgehad serious fondness reservations about thewidespread applicationof thislaw, a factthatcritics have not sufficiently acknowledged.) In Schelling's system Coleridge to a constant to a stateofidentity; thesamepowertends regression perceived the various fulfill all functions, to the point wherethe difference between an intheAbsoluteis lost.Thus,self-consciousness is inturn phasesofactivity an original antithesis and an original originalidentity, Through synthesis.27 the trinity to the various Coleridge hoped to provide greaterspecificity of divinecreativity, functions a specificity in a way bythevery guaranteed nomenclature of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Coleridgenevertiredof of distinction in the kind of unity the prominence thatthe trinity stressing "The Idea of God," he argued, embodies a unityin which represented. is the intensest," and and "Distinctionthe most manifest, "Individuality indestructible of all distinctions." This is why the trinity serves as "the substance and element ofall other and Union" Archetype, yea,thevery Unity remainthe 'generageneralissima' and "mustforever of all knowledge."28 The need to emphasizedistinctness ratherthan polar samenessin the Godhead drewColeridge'sattention to the figure of the Son. The Son, by virtue of hisdouble nature, humanand divine, best provedto be Coleridge's chanceofsubstantiating hisclaimthatindividuality wasa constitutive partof thetriune God. The Son, though bornout ofthedivineground, possessesan ofhisownthatis "one withbutnotthesameas" thatofhis inviolable identity divineparent.He is self-subsistent liketheFatherand theAbsoluteWill,but not "self-originated." to capture the Coleridge spent much time trying sensitive distinction betweentwo essentially indivisible, yetself-subsistent and I cannotherepresent thedetailsof his analysis.29 He felt thatif powers, man failedto understand theprimordial distinction between theFatherand the Logos, he would also failto understand otherdistinctions such as "the chasm infinitely infinite betweenthe Deity and the creature," between the eternaland the human mind. This is what ultimately led to the "human aversion to conceiveor admitthepersoneity" of God, which is thesamething as "the Distinctness, of the Word and the Spirit."30 As Boulger notes, Coleridgefullyrealized that "on the validityof the to the Logos within thegreater of Identity 'distinction' granted unity hinges the strength of philosophical dualismof Creatorand created,Absoluteand individual will, God and created finite substance."3' Moreover, the

63

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

statusof the Son guaranteed withthe a different independent relationship a Father one ofopposition.Coleridge with from was muchmorecomfortable model of activity that involvedparticipation of freeagentsin each other's thanstrife. thetrinity sphereof beingrather Coleridgemanagedto Through humanize what in the systemsof the Naturphilosophen is an abstract relationshipbetween subject and object in the second phase of the the transformative acts of theAbsolute.He presents between theinteraction Fatherand the Son as an exchangeof camaraderiemade possible by the ofthelaw influence oftheHoly Ghost.It wouldbe difficult to think unifying of "ExtremesMeet" withreference as Coleridge in which, to a relationship described from the Fatherto theSon," and "is returned it,love "proceedeth from theSon to theFather" theeternal and "this circulation constitutes unity in theeternalalterity and distinction, thelifeof Deityin actu purissimu."32 But difficulties remain. The difference between polarityand mere is tenuousat best. In his lateryearsColeridgecame to feelthe distinctness theHoly burdenof thedynamical schemehe used forthetrinity. In defining as a thatthispowershouldnotbe regarded Ghost,forexample,he observed as of the Father the but as "ens and Son, synthesis simplissimum," a Act proceeding theFather "substantial from and theSon and theCommunity and not oftheFatherand theSon."33It is clearthateventheterm "synthesis" thathe had doubts made Coleridgeuncomfortable, onlypolarity suggesting in the trinity about the safetyof distinctness withina methodological that retainedthe featuresof dynamicphilosophy.And yet framework God. The potent could notabandon theidea ofthedynamic image Coleridge to thestatesof of a God of actionwas attractive to Coleridgeas an antidote identification indolence and paralysis to whichhe often fellprey. Coleridge's of thesupreme DeitywiththeAbsoluteWilland hisclaimthatevenin man to hispersonal related willis deeperthanmindor reason,34 are undoubtedly sense of inadequacywithregardto "the powerto do, the manlyeffective will."35 But as is so oftenthecase withColeridge,emotionalneeds merely in divine theoriginal his speculative unity insights. Byidentifying sharpened consciousnesswith the Absolute Will, Coleridge was able to retainthe the risk of categories of Schelling'sdynamic systemwithoutincurring modelshow oftheSchellingean transformations And his further pantheism. viewoftheDeity thescholastic thathe developed deft ofintegrating strategies of a dynamicAbsolute.Coleridge'sapprehensions and the representation as a need not be interpreted about the model he was usingforthe trinity In fact,I and Christian failureto synthesize thought. dynamicphilosophy butthemeasureof his would like to suggestherethatit was not hisfailure ifitis to be wellknew, successthatworried him.As Coleridge anysynthesis, As expected, with can no longer be identical itsoriginal components. genuine, of alteration with theinevitable comfortable Coleridgecould not be entirely Christian dogma after its contact with dynamic philosophy. He was particularly apprehensiveabout the public's readinessto receivea new that had absorbed so may conceptsfromGerman doctrineof the trinity In Coleridge'scase, uncertainties as to appear unconventional. philosophy about of his ideas translated about the reception easily into uncertainties inherent Thereare,undoubtedly, and thematerial he was presenting. himself 64

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in Coleridge's difficulties that newversion ofthetrinity, conceptual especially delicate dividingline betweenpolarityand distinctness in the Godhead. that Kant would so Coleridgewas not able to subscribeto the principle that"difficulties For Coleridge, are notdoubts."36 advocate,namely serenely as formostofus,difficulties and doubtswenttogether, butintheendneither fromhis successin proving and dynamic detracted thatafter all Christianity not were unreconciled philosophy opponents. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

NOTES
zu seinem 'See Coleridge's to F. W. J.von Schelling's Einleitung response eines Systems der Naturphilosophie Entwurf (Jena & Leipzig, 1799) in his letterto J.H. Green of September30, 1818. Collected Letters of Samuel 1956ed. E.L. 6 Clarendon vols. Press, (Oxford: TaylorColeridge, Griggs, 71), IV, 874. (Berlin, 1806), a 21nGrundzjige der philosophischenNaturwissenschaft is workColeridge viewthatnature Steffens adheredto Schelling's annotated, not separatefromthespiritual theAbsolute.Every essencethatconstitutes ofnature is infinite and indestructible, its"homeinthedivine product having being" (Vorrede, p. XII). For Coleridge's awareness of the pantheistic in Steffens' "blasphemy" implicit conceptof theAbsolute,see his marginal noteto Grundzuge, "Notes Marginales de p. 28, quoted in HenriNidecker, S.T. Coleridge,"Revue de Litterature Comparee,11 (1931), 275. 31n his marginal notes to Kant's Metaphysische der Anfangsgriinde Naturwissenschaft (Riga, 1787) pp. 116-118,Coleridge describedKant's of matter as a "mereSand-ropeof Assertions," analysisof the permanence and as atheisticin conception. He accused Kant of makingsubstance with God and of confusingGod with the sensible world. synonymous annotated is in The Coleridge's copy of Metaphysische Anfangsgriinde British Library. 4"Evenwhilemyfaith was confined in thetrammels of Unitarianism...," as a truth Coleridgewrotein a noteto Jacob Boehme'sAurora,"I saw clearly in philosophy, thatthetrinitarian was theonlyconsequent Mediumbetween the Atheist and the Anthropomorph." vol. 12 of The Collected Marginalia, Works ed. GeorgeWhalley of Samuel TaylorColeridge, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press, 1980), I, 566. See also Marginalia, 679. For discussions ofColeridge's ofthe concept I, 645-646, see Thomas McFarland, Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition trinity JamesD. Boulger, (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1969),pp. 191-255; Coleridge as ReligiousThinker Press,1961),esp. (New Haven: Yale University pp. 94and Christian Mass.: Doctrine(Cambridge, 142; J.RobertBarth,Coleridge HarvardUniversity Press,1969),esp. pp. 85-104,and CraigWilliamMiller,

65

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"An Examination of the Key Terms in Coleridge's Prose Writings," Dissertation of Washington), Unpublished (University pp. 7-43. 5AnimaPoetae, ed. E.H. Coleridge(London: Heinemann,1895),p. 288. 6From Coleridge'sdescription of his oftenprojectedmagnumopus in CollectedLetters, IV, 736. JacksonBate,Coleridge 7Walter (New York:CollierBooks, 1973),p. 214. N.J.: 8Rene Wellek,Immanuel Kant in England 1793-1838(Princeton, Princeton Press, 1931),p. 124. University 9Seee.g. TheNotebooks Coburn ed. Kathleen ofSamuel Taylor Coleridge, (New York: PantheonBooks, 1957 [vol I] ; London: Routledge& Kegan Princeton Paul, 1961[vol II]; Princeton: Press,1973[vol. III]), III, University notes 679. In hismarginal 4427,4428,4429; Marginalia, 646-647, I, 562-565, to Lorenz Oken's Lehrbuchder Naturphilosophie (Jena, 1809) Coleridge on boththeinadequacyofOken'sconception commented oftheAbsoluteas wellas on thepossibleadaptationsof his viewsto an orthodoxrendition of the trinity. See esp. Coleridge'snote to vol. I, p. 19 of Lehrbuch(citedin Notebooks,III, 4428 n.), whereColeridgedetectsa possibleconvergence betweenNaturphilosophie and Christian orthodoxy. 'oFrom John Keats's often-quotedletter to Benjamin Bailey of 22 November1817. "See Notebooks,III, 4427 and CollectedLetters, II, 1195. 120n thedistinction see between God as divinegroundand God as person, Marginalia,I, 561 n. 5. '3See Marginalia,I, 564; Notebooks,III, 4427 and Notes, Theological, Politicaland Miscellaneous, ed, Derwent (London, 1853),pp. 395Coleridge 396. '4Notebooks, I, 1679. '5CollectedLetters, IV, 771. 16Marginalia, I, 564. 17ForColeridge'suse of the scholasticdefinition of God, see On the Constitution of the Churchand State (vol. 10 of The Collected Worksof ed. JohnColmer(London: Routledge& Kegan Samuel TaylorColeridge), Princeton Paul; Princeton: Press,1976),AppendixE, p. 234 and University ed. J. Shawcross,2 vols. (London: ClarendonPress, BiographiaLiteraria, 1907),I, 94. in the Absoluteor self8"For Schelling's analysisof theseriesof activities see his Systemdes transcendentalen Idealismus(Tiibingen, consciousness, zu seinemEntwurfeines derNaturphilosophie, 1800)and Einleitung Systems both of whichColeridgeannotated. '9See Notes, Theological, Politicaland Miscellaneous, pp. 395-396.

66

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in 1818(Notebooks,II, 4427), 20Seetheimportant notebookentry written itinto takesoverSchelling's modeland transplants whereColeridge dynamic the doctrine of the trinity. 21 Marginalia,I, 679. Coleridgeas Religious Thinker,p. 134. 22Boulger, 23Aidsto Reflection, vol. I of The Complete Worksof Samuel Taylor ed. W.G. Shedd (New York: Harper,1858),Introduction, p. 44. Coleridge, as Religious Thinker, p. Boulgerin Coleridge p. 134,and Bate in Coleridge, in God. and becoming 217, also arguethatColeridgeintroduces potentiality 24Collected Letter, II, 1195.
25Ibid.

117.

26See and State, e.g. On theConstitution pp.24*andn.3, oftheChurch

27SeeSystems des Transcendentalen Idealismus.

28Collected Letters, II, 1196. 29See the note from Opus Maximum quoted by Boulger,Coleridgeas Religious Thinker, p. 138. 573-574,565. 30Marginalia, Coleridgeas Religious Thinker, 31Boulger, p. 138. 32FromOpus Maximum, quoted by Boulger, Coleridge as Religious Thinker, p. 141. 33Quoted by Boulger,Coleridgeas Religious Thinker, p. 141. 34Seee.g. CollectedLetters, VI, 600. 35Notebooks, II, 2086. and Metaphysical Foundationsof NaturalScience,transl. 36Prolegomena ErnestBelfort Bax (London: George Bell and Sons, 1883),p. 145 n.

67

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COLERIDGE'S PROTHESIS THESIS

APPENDIX VIEW OF THE TRINITY 1DENTITY IPSEITY ALTERITY COMMUNITY

ANTITHESIS SYNTHESIS

IDENTITY The AbsoluteWill,the Good, the Ground IPSEITY The I AM, the Father, the SupremeWill Being A L TERITY The Son, the Logos, Truth,the SupremeMind, the onlybegotten Word, Intellect

COMMUNITY Life,Love, the Holy Spirit,Action PROTHESIS The AbsoluteSubjectivity THESIS The Relatively Subjective Deitas subjectiva ANTITHESIS The Relatively Objective Deitas objectiva

SYNTHESIS The relatively united subjective withthe relatively objective

PROTHESIS: GOD AS GROUND

THESIS, ANTITHESIS, SYNTHESIS: GOD AS PERSON

68

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.236 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions