[635] Mr. Hutchison Stirling insists upon this in the _Fortnightly Review_ for July 1867. He proves, I think, that Coleridge's knowledge of the various schemes of German philosophy and of the precise relation of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling was altogether desultory and confused. How far this is important depends upon whether we attach much or little importance to precise combinations of words used by these philosophers. [636] _Dissertations_, i. 392-474. [637] _Ibid._ i. 424. [638] _Dissertations_, i. 437. [639] _Ibid._ i. 425-27. [640] _Dissertations_, i. 437. [641] Coleridge's _Hints towards the Formation of a more Comprehensive Theory of Life_, edited by S. B. Watson, in 1848, is a curious attempt to apply his evolution doctrine to natural science. Lewes, in his _Letters on Comte's Philosophy of the Sciences_, says that it is a 'shameless plagiarism' from Schelling's _Erster Entwurf_, etc. It seems, as far as I can judge, that Coleridge's doctrines about magnetism, reproduction, irritability, sensibility, etc., are, in fact, adapted from Schelling. The book was intended, as Mr. E. H. Coleridge tells me, for a chapter in a work on Scrophula, projected by Gillman. As Coleridge died long before the publication, he cannot be directly responsible for not acknowledging obligations to Schelling. Unfortunately he cannot claim the benefit of a good character in such matters. Anyhow, Coleridge's occasional excursions into science can only represent a vague acceptance of the transcendental method represented, as I understand, by Oken. * * * * * Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to her Majesty at the Edinburgh University Press