NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. XL FEB. 28, 1903.
that there is a French goblin named Robin des bois ; at least, so I conclude from the fact that a lutin, or bugbear, of this name was casually mentioned in a French novel which I read some months ago. Can any one give me information as to this Gallic Robin of the Wood, and tell me whether he formerly appeared in the French may-games, or simply confined himself to forests and wildernesses ?
QUOTATIONS WANTED. Can any reader supply the source of the following quota- tions i
Distinct, but distant ; clear, but oh ! how cold! I find this line in Prof. Cowell's Calcutta Review article on FitzGerald's ' Omar Khay- yam.'
When Cupid makes immortal arms his spoil, Can mortals hope the roguish god to foil ?
This is cited as "the question of the Greek poet" in Mr. Campbell Dodgson's translation of Knackfuss's * Raphael,' P- 122. What Greek poet? It reads like a passage of Rufinus in the * Anthology,' with an alteration. E. S. Melbourne.
COLERIDGE'S 'CHRISTABEL.' (9 th S. x. 326, 388, 429, 489 ; xi. 30, 116.)
I COME now to COL. PRIDEAUX'S remarks on Hazlitt and the Edinburgh Review. The three articles in the Edinburgh which I attri- bute to Hazlitt are ' Coleridge's " Christabel," ' No. LIII. pp. 58-67, September, 1816 ; * Cole- ridge's "Lay Sermon,"' No. LIV. pp. 444-459, December, 1816 ; and 'Coleridge's "Literary Life," ' No. LVI. pp. 488-515, August, 1817. COL. PRIDEAUX, who disputes this view of the authorship, cites in his support (as he believes) Mr. Alex. Ireland and Mr. Dykes Campbell. He then proceeds to discuss the probabilities of the case, and finally tells us that he "cannot bring himself to believe" that Hazlitt wrote the articles in question.
COL. PRIDEAUX writes :
"Even the notice of the 'Biographia Literaria ' which appeared in the Edinburgh Review oi August 17,... ...is marked by Mr. Ireland as doubtful Mr
Dykes Campbell is not certain on the point. He says that the ascriptions of the articles in the Edinburgh to Hazlitt though probably, are not certainly, correct, and in another place remarks
accepted 8 " aCCUSatl n ' S tO graV6 tO be lightl y In these three sentences COL. PRIDEAUX falls .nto four several mistakes. He errs, firstly m treating the authorship of the article on the Biographia as an open question. Mr. Ireland may be "a writer," as COL. PRIDEAUX
says, " of great authority on all matters con- nected with Hazlitt," but on this point we happen to possess an authority still greater than Mr. Ireland William Hazlitt himself. When preparing for the press his 'Political Essays ' (published by William Hone in 1819) Hazlitt included a large cutting from this very article (pp. 503-507 in the Edinburgh), which reappears in the 'Political Essays' under the title, 'Character of Mr. Burke.' The article on 'Coleridge's " Literary Life," ' then, was claimed by Hazlitt, and Mr. Ire- land's "doubts" on the subject need not trouble or detain us. Secondly, COL. PRIDEAUX errs in saying that Mr. Campbell "is not certain on the point." Mr. Campbell is certain quite certain on the point, for he writes (' Life of Coleridge,' 1894, p. 228), "The book [i.e., 'Biographia'] was savagely reviewed by Hazlitt in the Edinburgh for August, 1817." Thirdly, it was not, as COL. PRIDEAUX implies, of the three articles, but of those on ' Christabel ' and the ' Lay Ser- mon' only, that Mr. Campbell pronounced the ascription to Hazlitt to be " probably, but not certainly, correct" (ibid., p. 225, note 1). Fourthly, it was not regarding the three articles or the two last named, but regarding the article on ' Christabel ' alone, that Mr. Campbell deemed "the accusation [i.e., the attribution to Hazlitt] too grave to be lightly accepted" ('Poetical Works of Coleridge,' 1893, p. 603, col. 2). Before en- gaging in controversy it is well to make sure of one's facts and authorities. Here, it is plain, COL. PRIDEAUX gravely, though no doubt unconsciously, misrepresents that most painstaking and accurate biographer, Mr. Dykes Campbell.
COL. PRIDEAUX next proceeds to examine the antecedent likelihood of Hazlitt's having written the Edinburgh critique on 'Christabel.' I omit his speculations as to the effect upon Coleridge's temper of the struggle against " the opium habit," and I come to his remarks upon the well - known essay ' My First Acquaintance with Poets.' COL. PRIDEAUX writes :
"I cannot bring myself to believe that the author of the Edinburgh Review articles was the same writer who a few months afterwards (12 January, 1817) penned the magnificent description of his early intercourse with Coleridge which Mr. Birrell has incorporated in a chapter of his recent book." Now here we have an example of the danger of taking upon trust the statements or refer- ences of another writer, no matter how bril- liant or "authoritative" he may be. A note on p. 53 of Mr. BirrelPs little book has be- trayed COL. PRIDEAUX into an error from which a knowledge of the original documents