onnets_, and the unsophisticated
scribe of _Peter Bell_ and _The Idiot Boy_. Like Browning, he wrote too
much to write well at all times, and if both poets were capable of the
sublimest flights, they likewise descended to unimagined depths; but the
fault of Wordsworth was perhaps the greater, because his bathos was the
result of a deliberate and persistent attempt to enrich English poetry
with prosaically versified incidents drawn at length from homely rural
life.

SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE

The first part of Coleridge's _Christabel_ was written in 1797 during
the brief period of inspiration that also gave us _The Ancient Mariner_
and _Kubla Khan_--in short, that small group of exquisite poems which in
themselves suffice to place Coleridge in the front rank of English
poets. The second part was written in 1800, after the author's return
from Germany. The fragment circulated widely in manuscript among
literary men, bewitched Scott and Byron into imitating its fascinating
rhythms, and, at Byron's suggestion, was finally published by Murray in
1816 with _Kubla Khan_ and _The Pains of Sleep_. It is probable that the
high esteem in which these poems were held by Coleridge's literary
friends led him to expect a favorable reception at the hands of the
critics; hence his keen disappointment at the general tone of their
sarcastic analysis and their protests against the absurdity and
obscurity of the poems. The principal critiques on _Christabel_
were:--(1) _Edinburgh Rev._, XXVII (58-67), which is here reprinted; (2)
_Monthly Rev._, LXXXII, n.s. (22-25), reprinted in Stevenson's _Early
Reviews_; (3) _The Literary Panorama_, IV, n.s. (561-565); and (4)
_Anti-Jacobin Rev._, L (632-636).

It is evident that Coleridge was eminently successful in the gentle art
of making enemies. We have seen that Southey's attack on the _Lyrical
Ballads_ was a direct result of his ill-will toward Coleridge; the
outrageous article in the _Edinburgh Review_ was written by William
Hazlitt under similar inspiration, and was followed by abusive papers in
_The Examiner_ (1816, p. 743, and 1817, p. 236). There was no
justification for Hazlitt, and none has been attempted by his
biographers. Judged by its intrinsic merits, the Edinburgh article is
one of the most absurd reviews ever written by a critic of recognized
ability. Hazlitt followed the method of outlining the story by quotation
with interspersed sarcasm and ironical criticism. As a coarse boor