You are on page 1of 11

"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: . Accessed: 09/07/2013 09:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

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


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

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

declaredthe onenessof natureand the Absolute. manyyearsof "incessant Thought. "central thathad blocked"Coleridge'smagnumopus was "thatof difficulty the'dynamic of nature withtheChristian dualismof reconciling philosophy' God and thecreatedworld. Rather.a productof the he same.Coleridgeincorrigibly and misrepresents theradicaltheories of Germanphilosophers."8 out of transcendental idealismintoreligious the exhortations flights betray 59 This content downloaded from 200. following Schelling.19. selfand naturean equal share in originating the same seriesof productive acts.4 Butthetrinity was not firmly grounded forColeridge a convenient article of he could faith.bygiving Schelling." idealismside bysidewith intheTriuneGod and thehistorical a belief creedof It would be fruitless in to that some instances deny Coleridge's Christianity. Thisis whathefound in the works of German Naturphilosophen and what in his estimatewas singularlyresponsiblefor the most flagranterrors in their doctrines. "that connects Christianity with philosophy.130. makingGod "a part of the universe.came adventuring dangerouslyclose to pantheismwhen. positivelabor.althoughnot beyond physicsin his analysis of the forcesof is "to themoralist and psychologist."making religion as indispensable to the philosopher. Coleridgehopedto provide by itwithin thesphere ofChristian hedevoted a taskto which bringing theology. According Bate. . 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . in thetheistic doctrine ofthetrinity. God ofChristianity. in MetaphysicalFoundationsof Natural Science. "that he stillassertssubjective Coleridgeaninconsistency..2 Even Kant.attempted to burna candleat bothends."6 Critics have generallyregardedwith skepticismColeridge'sefforts to German and the Christian to synthesize philosophy dogma. the trinity forColeridgethe keyto philosophicthinking as such."5 theconcept ofthe redemption Through a securebasis fordynamicphilosophy trinity. In declaring naturea self-subsistent inevitably slipped entity.3 For Coleridgetheonlycorrect oflife answerto a theory was a transcendent and theonlyalternative to pantheism was a system deity.and .he wrote.236 on Tue."' HeinrichSteffens faredno better when. the forexample. he explained the permanenceof matterwithoutany reference to spirit."7 Wellek'spositionon thissubjectis wellknown: in orderto make roomforhis religious bends views. always merely something turnto whenever he wantedto asserthis superiority the German vis-a-vis philosophersby virtue of his clean religiousviews. "It is a truly Wellek writes.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. It is the represented doctrine of the trinity. Schelling into pantheism.

urgency his sacrifice thatColeridge wouldautomatically concludefrom suchinstances values.We as thedoctrines Coleridge'snotionof thetrinity need to reexaminethe claim."is forman. and theHolyGhost."But in theveryact of self-affirmation.God is an absoluteunity Holy Ghost."begetting the the"I Am in thatI Am. represents all. who standsfortheLogos." complementing intheFather.a fromthe Naturphilosophen.Son.havingthegroundof reality all of his ideas and attributes. theFatherand theSon. Christian of thetrinity. Coleridge'sconception systems "repeatedin a finer dynamicphilosophy tone. Coleridge'smost prominent appear in and of idealism German of with various concerned concepts writings to Boehmeand Oken."'1 essentially consistsin his Coleridge'smain revisionof the concept of the trinity triadof Father. 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. ofGod. and essence.The Father theFather.'2 Energy" Through in "a three-fold to himself hisexistence manifests Act. and equatesitwith God in his consciousness an "immanent as divineground. God as ground between was thedistinction (theProthesis) 60 This content downloaded from 200. to full notin time)to bring God expendsa secondEnergy synthesis (in order. theWord. oftenmade by Coleridgeand reiterated by is directly based on thetrinity thata system critics. relatively love and of community. 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.theabsoluteSubjectivity.9 of theChurchFathers."Coleridge and possessingsimultaneously or Identity all-inclusive namesthisstateof undifferentiated.subjectand object. or.'3 Coleridge whatat theoppositeend is the"deitassubjectiva" of God's gesture of divine on this creativity."'5 Finally. acknowledged.19." This marks act of self-assertion. especially philosophicalmodel forthe trinity whose conceptionof the Absolutehas as muchbearingon fromSchelling. opposedto thepantheistic is ofthetrinity of theGermanphilosophers.'6 to trinitarian contribution theology Coleridgefeltthathismostimportant and God as person. Coleridge's subjectivity stage theSon God also begets of "Ipseity. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .236 on Tue. Originally. Ipseity subjective of the essence who Ghost the represents Holy creating objective. The Son is for God what anotherhuman being. and the to thetraditional element additionof a fourth ofform Coleridgeclaims.Butone shouldnot ofanalytic ofbelief rather thantherigor thinking. His marginalia Naturphilosophie as numerous notebook entries. and the therelatively and Alterity.the"deitasobjectiva. God's primary in terms." the"sole adequate.'4He represents or "real Image of God. dogma the source of Coleridge's without being able to pin down thoroughly unconventional handlingof the well in particular.130. in divine relative of consciousness. yetnotthesame. In Coleridge'shandsthismostorthodox conception but have that critics a fact is rendered unorthodox. indicate that Coleridge extracted.totalineachand one in theSon."intensely the"essential Symbol" similar.The source is actuallynot that on the trinity statements obscure. unityProthesis God and with theabsoluteWill. within himself.Idea in God.

9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .insistence on thisdistinction his was meant to protect Ostensibly.thedifferentiation between an original unity trinity. during to itsoriginal to a stateof synthesis by whichit returns object. opposingtendencies. dynamic."as Boulgerwellobserves.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. which is a phase of identity(A=A) from the moment of synthesis. theAbsolutemust. nottherefore. originally the and he distinguishes neither essencenor formbut both simultaneously. and a ceaseless movement fromidentity to antithesis from antithesis back to identity. Coleridge's from he often an error in theworksoftheNaturphilosophen. and categories As late as 1830Coleridge was stillusinga four-fold pattern of dynamicphilosophyto renderhis view of the trinity.Schelling. intosubjectand object. Schelling. forthe abandoninghis originalunity just as in Schelling the "Without sake of self-knowledge.he was confident of God as "actus purissimus scholasticdefinition sine ulla potentialitate.20 "in whichand by whichGod is manifest to himself. for selfof the act of God's creation is an attaining Coleridge trinity consciousness."'7 for This view. howdoes hissystem overcome thepantheistic dynamic fromwhichthe Germanphilosophers could not escape? pitfalls evidently the Moreover. suspectingsome foul heretical deviousness on Coleridge's part.236 on Tue.19 In effect. longas Coleridgeadheredto thenotionofan original unity that he did not deviatefromthe prior to all division. for example. in theGodhead. "knownby eventsrather thanas a subjectto be contemplated. 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. like Fichte. ofrepresenting and implicitly namely the Deityas capable of development.In order to know himself." Son.among others. This and as itwere.describedthe eternalact of self-consciousness. is clearly to theidea ofa attracted Coleridge self-conscious God. as a strife ofsubjectand object. to Schelling.thatColeridgeborrowed from the Naturphilosophen a modelforthetrinity. God generateshis own object. system spotted thatofplacingpolarity intheAbsolute.130. not an entity. of Schelling's viewthattheAbsoluteis essentially again showstheinfluence an act. to a "God ofaction.19. Shedd. he would not attainexistence "in the same sensethata circlewouldnot be withouta center& a circumference. as a perfect beingwhose ideas are fullyrealized.repeatedby Coleridgein manywritings. of whichis the Absoluteitself." Coleridgewrote.then. has beenresponsible the obfuscation of a most important source of Coleridge'sconceptof the in theAbsolute In fact."22 If it is true.unlimited As and limited activity.too. and a triad of subsequentactivitiesbelongs.and finally 8 unity. believes that 61 This content downloaded from 200.forexample. claims the an undivided that Absolute is unity. abandon itsstateof original identity."21 The separationbetweenGod the Fatherand theSon generates interaction a flow ofenergy.

whose essenceis to be causativeof all abstractly wouldsinkintoa Spinozistic whenGod is seen Reality.of a and in theordernature. A moretenuouspointregarding oftheconceptofthe revision Coleridge's concerns his claimthat. Willthus ensuresthe personeity of God priorto its manifestation theFather. "leaving The error inthisscheme inthis:itsassumption consists ofan aboriginal Unity .wethink..Coleridge original ground. before . conflicts withthescholastic ofGod as a pure deity automatically conception act without is notso easilysettled.which. . If wrongin thinking God's idea ofhisownperfection includes a processofdevelopment. in Schelling'sestimate. suchas thepolarity between subjectand objectin Schelling'ssystem? Coleridgewas well aware of this problemand in his 62 This content downloaded from 200. as AbsoluteWill.however."the supremeReality.In thisway.130. How does this relationship relationship differ from one ofpolarity. Shedd omits fromthis summaryan important featureof Coleridge's ofthetrinity hehopedto remove theimpersonality ofan conception bywhich with theAbsoluteWill. This is clearly theresult of Coleridge'suse of categories from Butthequestionas to whether thenotionofa dynamic dynamic philosophy.Coleridge can be added or substracted from thefour phasesthatmarkGod's attainment of self-consciousness. namely on a process of continuousactivityin the Absolute. and ifthis idea is fully thenGod stillretains hisidentity as "a pureact without realized. inhisconstruction. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . is carriedout in conformity witha rigidmodel of interactive nonetheless. Coleridge'sview of thetrinity certainly more continuousand progressive..Shedd is." if he had not committed the errorof theschemeoftheTriadforthatoftheTetrad..19.a process..if it were contemplated fromthe Absolute Will. proper evolved. theSon.236 on Tue. Nothing more uses. The difficulty here is posed polarity to describe the by Coleridge's use of the terms "Thesis-Antithesis" betweenthe Fatherand the Son. All thatis required definition is thatGod's anypotentiality. God's manifestation of his dynamic does not energy therefore theidea ofhis"immutable Here was preclude perfection."24 Bycontrast.unlikethe Naturphilosophen.substantially groundin nature."25 ofthedynamical he scheme Furthermore." bythescholastic ideas be alwaysrealor"intensely actual"and thathis"Thoughts" be "anterior to all buthimself alone.. a Trinity existing primarily by itself. unalterable categoriesthat is both completeand.he appearsfrom thevery as a self-sufficient and beginning self-conscious different froman impersonal being.. a process ofdevelopment is introduced intothe Godhead whichis incompatible withits immutable . .would have been "moresuccessful. Deity."23 perfection. by time. any potentiality Coleridgemaynot have been entirely thatthetwoviewsare notincompatible." Coleridge wellserved ofSchelling's theemphasis bya characteristic philosophy. he was able to trinity avoid theerror ofplacing intheAbsolute.As hewrote to Spinoza's amorphous Edward Coleridgein 1826.He equatedtheProthesis was wellaware thatsomething called "Ground"can be easilyconfused with substance unlessitis designated as Will. byvirtue affirms thecompleteness ofGod's creative act. in through right thata pattern ofdevelopment is inherent inColeridge's stating representation of thetrinity. and theHoly Ghost. whichis not in its own natureeither triune or groundforthe Trinity but is merely theimpersonal base from which theTrinity is personal.

variouselaborations of thetrinity modelhe he triedto redefine thedynamic borrowed from the Naturphilosophen.236 on Tue. Coleridgenevertiredof of distinction in the kind of unity the prominence thatthe trinity stressing "The Idea of God. Son.26 and mind. though bornout ofthedivineground. This is what ultimately led to the "human aversion to conceiveor admitthepersoneity" of God. when viewed as polar entities.) In Schelling's system Coleridge to a constant to a stateofidentity." Coleridgehad serious fondness reservations about thewidespread applicationof thislaw.Coleridge thedistinctness ofeach component ofthetrinity and hecarefully emphasized in presenting the relationship avoided a language of oppositionor strife theFatherand theSon."3' Moreover." and and "Distinctionthe most manifest.are alwaysofthesameessence. functions a specificity in a way bythevery guaranteed nomenclature of Father.He is self-subsistent liketheFatherand theAbsoluteWill. best provedto be Coleridge's chanceofsubstantiating hisclaimthatindividuality wasa constitutive partof thetriune God. Through synthesis.Thus. yetself-subsistent and I cannotherepresent thedetailsof his analysis. and God. a factthatcritics have not sufficiently acknowledged.subjectand object. to the point wherethe difference between an intheAbsoluteis lost." This is why the trinity serves as "the substance and element ofall other and Union" Archetype. man failedto understand theprimordial distinction between theFatherand the Logos.nature soul." between the eternaland the human mind. The Son." to capture the Coleridge spent much time trying sensitive distinction betweentwo essentially indivisible. and Holy Ghost. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and the essentialdisparatenessof various orders of being.130.Instead of polarity. of the Word and the Spirit."30 As Boulger notes.but not "self-originated. God and created finite substance. humanand divine. thesamepowertends regression perceived the various fulfill all functions. the 63 This content downloaded from 200.self-consciousness is inturn phasesofactivity an original antithesis and an original originalidentity.Opposites. abused polarity sacrificed diversity. possessesan ofhisownthatis "one withbutnotthesameas" thatofhis inviolable identity divineparent. is the intensest. thebodyand the Hence. Coleridgefullyrealized that "on the validityof the to the Logos within thegreater of Identity 'distinction' granted unity hinges the strength of philosophical dualismof Creatorand created. he would also failto understand otherdistinctions such as "the chasm infinitely infinite betweenthe Deity and the creature.tend to merge into an amorphous that thateradicates their indistinctness For Coleridgea system individuality.Absoluteand individual will."28 The need to emphasizedistinctness ratherthan polar samenessin the Godhead drewColeridge'sattention to the figure of the Son.thevery Unity remainthe 'generageneralissima' and "mustforever of all knowledge. by virtue of hisdouble nature.27 the trinity to the various Coleridge hoped to provide greaterspecificity of divinecreativity." he argued.29 He felt thatif he often stated. (Despite his forthe dynamiclaw of "ExtremesMeet. The Son. inevitably qualitiessuch as distinctness.had for Coleridgeone seriousflaw. embodies a unityin which represented. "Individuality indestructible of all distinctions. yea. which is thesamething as "the Distinctness. between as a modelofexplaining themotor of all activity both in the Absolute and in nature.

undoubtedly."32 But difficulties remain.236 on Tue.statusof the Son guaranteed withthe a different independent relationship a Father one ofopposition.emotionalneeds merely in divine theoriginal his speculative unity insights. onlypolarity suggesting in the trinity about the safetyof distinctness withina methodological that retainedthe featuresof dynamicphilosophy. Byidentifying sharpened consciousnesswith the Absolute Will.Coleridge'sapprehensions and the representation as a need not be interpreted about the model he was usingforthe trinity In fact. and thematerial he was presenting.As Coleridge anysynthesis.Coleridge with from was muchmorecomfortable model of activity that involvedparticipation of freeagentsin each other's thanstrife. He was particularly apprehensiveabout the public's readinessto receivea new that had absorbed so may conceptsfromGerman doctrineof the trinity In Coleridge'scase. genuine.I and Christian failureto synthesize thought.130.It wouldbe difficult to think unifying of "ExtremesMeet" withreference as Coleridge in which.34 are undoubtedly sense of inadequacywithregardto "the powerto do. In defining as a thatthispowershouldnotbe regarded Ghost. to a relationship described from the Fatherto theSon. dynamicphilosophy butthemeasureof his would like to suggestherethatit was not hisfailure ifitis to be wellknew. 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. synthesis simplissimum. uncertainties as to appear unconventional. Coleridge was able to retainthe the risk of categories of Schelling'sdynamic systemwithoutincurring modelshow oftheSchellingean transformations And his further pantheism. philosophy about of his ideas translated about the reception easily into uncertainties inherent Thereare."35 But as is so oftenthecase withColeridge. of alteration with theinevitable comfortable Coleridgecould not be entirely Christian dogma after its contact with dynamic philosophy." a Act proceeding theFather "substantial from and theSon and theCommunity and not oftheFatherand theSon. successthatworried him.And yet framework God." and "is returned it. the manlyeffective will. As expected. with can no longer be identical itsoriginal components. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . thelifeof Deityin actu "proceedeth from theSon to theFather" theeternal and "this circulation constitutes unity in theeternalalterity and distinction."33It is clearthateventheterm "synthesis" thathe had doubts made Coleridgeuncomfortable.He presents between theinteraction Fatherand the Son as an exchangeof camaraderiemade possible by the ofthelaw influence oftheHoly Ghost. Coleridge's of thesupreme DeitywiththeAbsoluteWilland hisclaimthatevenin man to hispersonal related willis deeperthanmindor reason. In his lateryearsColeridgecame to feelthe distinctness theHoly burdenof thedynamical schemehe used forthetrinity. The difference between polarityand mere is tenuousat best.he observed as of the Father the but as "ens and Son.forexample. himself 64 This content downloaded from 200. viewoftheDeity thescholastic thathe developed deft ofintegrating strategies of a dynamicAbsolute. 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.19.

RobertBarth. its"homeinthedivine product having being" (Vorrede. He accused Kant of makingsubstance with God and of confusingGod with the sensible world.and CraigWilliamMiller. 566..1969). 645-646.Every essencethatconstitutes ofnature is infinite and indestructible. (Oxford:ClarendonPress. 6 Clarendon vols. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. 31n his marginal notes to Kant's Metaphysische der Anfangsgriinde Naturwissenschaft (Riga.see his marginal noteto Grundzuge. Green of September30. Coleridge..Coleridge describedKant's of matter as a "mereSand-ropeof Assertions. For discussions ofColeridge's ofthe concept I."Revue de Litterature Comparee. J. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON NOTES zu seinem 'See Coleridge's to F. not separatefromthespiritual Coleridge's difficulties that newversion ofthetrinity.19. J. 71).H. (Berlin.T.pp.esp. that Kant would so Coleridgewas not able to subscribeto the principle that"difficulties For Coleridge. W. 94and Christian Mass. 191-255. 1799) in his letterto J. See also Marginalia. 874. Collected Letters of Samuel 1956ed. 12 of The Collected Marginalia. 116-118.130.namely serenely as formostofus. quoted in HenriNidecker.esp." vol. are notdoubts. (New Haven: Yale University pp." as a truth Coleridgewrotein a noteto Jacob Boehme'sAurora. 28. For Coleridge's awareness of the pantheistic in Steffens' "blasphemy" implicit conceptof theAbsolute.difficulties and doubtswenttogether. Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition trinity JamesD. butintheendneither fromhis successin proving and dynamic detracted thatafter all Christianity not were unreconciled philosophy opponents. 275. 1787) pp."36 advocate. 1806). "Notes Marginales de p.Coleridge HarvardUniversity Press.: Doctrine(Cambridge. Works ed. E. synonymous annotated is in The Coleridge's copy of Metaphysische Anfangsgriinde British Library. Coleridge as ReligiousThinker Press. I. IV. a 21nGrundzjige der philosophischenNaturwissenschaft is workColeridge viewthatnature Steffens adheredto Schelling's annotated. 85-104. (Oxford: TaylorColeridge. 1980).L.1969)..11 (1931). 4"Evenwhilemyfaith was confined in thetrammels of Unitarianism. GeorgeWhalley of Samuel TaylorColeridge.1961). Press. 679. S. 65 This content downloaded from 200. XII)." analysisof the permanence and as atheisticin conception. see Thomas McFarland."I saw clearly in philosophy.236 on Tue. Boulger. thatthetrinitarian was theonlyconsequent Mediumbetween the Atheist and the Anthropomorph. pp. Griggs. 142. conceptual especially delicate dividingline betweenpolarityand distinctness in the Godhead. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p.von Schelling's Einleitung response eines Systems der Naturphilosophie Entwurf (Jena & Leipzig. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1818.

III])."An Examination of the Key Terms in Coleridge's Prose Writings.p.p.p. p.III. 1961[vol II].I. zu seinemEntwurfeines derNaturphilosophie. 771. Princeton: Press. Marginalia. BiographiaLiteraria. in the Absoluteor self8"For Schelling's analysisof theseriesof activities see his Systemdes transcendentalen Idealismus(Tiibingen. '4Notebooks.236 on Tue. 395-396. University notes 679. JohnColmer(London: Routledge& Kegan Samuel TaylorColeridge). See esp. 1957 [vol I] . 16Marginalia.g. 646-647. 288. p. 124. 1679. In hismarginal 4427. I. J. Unpublished (University pp.I. 1907). 1800)and Einleitung Systems both of whichColeridgeannotated.I.). Marginalia.2 vols.AppendixE. II. 1809) Coleridge on boththeinadequacyofOken'sconception commented oftheAbsoluteas wellas on thepossibleadaptationsof his viewsto an orthodoxrendition of the trinity.19. Theological. Politicaland Miscellaneous. 5. I. 562-565. 4428 n. 1973). JacksonBate.III. Theological. Kathleen ofSamuel Taylor Coleridge. Princeton: Press. to Lorenz Oken's Lehrbuchder Naturphilosophie (Jena. 564. ed. consciousness. 564. 10 of The Collected Worksof ed. Princeton Press. 'oFrom John Keats's often-quotedletter to Benjamin Bailey of 22 November1817. 94. Politicaland Miscellaneous. 1195. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . "See Notebooks. III.J.1973[vol. pp. 17ForColeridge'suse of the scholasticdefinition of God. '5CollectedLetters. '9See Notes. see On the Constitution of the Churchand State (vol.pp.4429. 66 This content downloaded from 200. N. University 9Seee. Coleridge'snote to vol. 120n thedistinction see between God as divinegroundand God as person.1895). Princeton Paul. London: Routledge& Kegan Princeton Paul.130. whereColeridgedetectsa possibleconvergence betweenNaturphilosophie and Christian orthodoxy.4428. '3See Marginalia. 7-43. 234 and University ed. Coleridge(London: Heinemann. 6From Coleridge'sdescription of his oftenprojectedmagnumopus in CollectedLetters. 736.1976). 1931)." Dissertation of Washington). (New York: PantheonBooks.Immanuel Kant in England 1793-1838(Princeton. ed. 214. TheNotebooks Coburn ed.III. 4427 and CollectedLetters. IV. I. 19 of Lehrbuch(citedin Notebooks. 5AnimaPoetae.Coleridge 7Walter (New York:CollierBooks. 395Coleridge 396. Notebooks. I.H. Derwent (London. E. 1853). Shawcross. (London: ClarendonPress. IV. 4427 and Notes. 561 n.: 8Rene Wellek.

p. 1195. 32FromOpus Maximum. p.3. 36Prolegomena ErnestBelfort Bax (London: George Bell and Sons. 34Seee. 1196. I of The Complete Worksof Samuel Taylor ed. 573-574. VI. 145 n.and Bate in Coleridge. 600. Shedd (New York: Harper. 29See the note from Opus Maximum quoted by Boulger.19. 138. 33Quoted by Boulger.Introduction. 67 This content downloaded from 200.II. p. and becoming 217. 141. as Religious Thinker. 20Seetheimportant notebookentry written itinto takesoverSchelling's modeland transplants whereColeridge dynamic the doctrine of the trinity.Coleridgeas Religious Thinker.G. 21 1818(Notebooks. On theConstitution pp. 25Ibid. 23Aidsto Reflection. 28Collected Letters.130.I. II. 679. 138. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . p. 1883). Coleridge. and Metaphysical Foundationsof NaturalScience. 44.565. vol.g.1858). Coleridgeas Religious Thinker. also arguethatColeridgeintroduces potentiality 24Collected Letter. Coleridgeas Religious Thinker. Boulgerin Coleridge p. II.g. 26See and State. oftheChurch 27SeeSystems des Transcendentalen Idealismus. 31Boulger. 141. 30Marginalia. 134.24*andn. II. 35Notebooks. 117. 134.p. Coleridge as Religious Thinker. 4427). p. quoted by Boulger. e.236 on Tue. in God. p. CollectedLetters.transl.p. 2086. W. 22Boulger.Coleridgeas Religious Thinker.

SYNTHESIS: GOD AS PERSON 68 This content downloaded from 200. Intellect COMMUNITY Life.COLERIDGE'S PROTHESIS THESIS APPENDIX VIEW OF THE TRINITY 1DENTITY IPSEITY ALTERITY COMMUNITY ANTITHESIS SYNTHESIS IDENTITY The AbsoluteWill. the Logos. ANTITHESIS.19. the Holy Spirit.the Good. the Ground IPSEITY The I AM. the SupremeWill Being A L TERITY The Son. the Father. Truth.Love.the SupremeMind. the onlybegotten Word. 9 Jul 2013 09:11:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .130.236 on Tue.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.