Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 10.djvu/438

 430

NOTES AND QUERIES.

B. x. NOV. 29, uoe.

with his usual taste and judgment, has re- tained it in his edition of Coleridge in "The Muses' Library."

MR. HUTCHINSON follows Coleridge in attributing to Hazlitt the review oJ ' Christabel ' that appeared in the Edinburgh Review of September, 1816. Neither thi article nor that which appeared in the Examiner of 2 June, 1816, has been claimed as Hazlitt's by his son or grandson ; and Mr. Alexander Ireland, a writer of great authority on all matters connected with Hazlitt, has omitted it from the list of that writer's con- tributions to the Edinburgh Review which is printed on p. 75 of his ' List of the Writings of William Hazlitt and Leigh Hunt,' 1868. Even the notice of the 'Biographia Literaria' which appeared in the Edinburgh Review of August, 1817, and which is generally attri- buted to Hazlitt, 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 Review to Hazlitt, though probably, are not certainly, correct, and in another place remarks that this accusation is too grave to be lightly accepted. Coleridge in the " Con- clusion " of his ' Biographia Literaria ' says that " the review was generally attributed (whether rightly or no I know not) to a man who both in my presence and in my absence repeatedly pronounced it ['Christabel'] the finest poem of its kind in the language," but in his private letters he expressed niraself much more strongly. It must, however, be remembered that at that period (1816-1817) Coleridge was struggling to free himself from the opium habit, and, as is usual in such cir- cumstances, was in a very quarrelsome mood with every one. He quarrelled with Hazlitt because he reviewed him (as he thought) in the Edinburgh ; he quarrelled with Southey because he did not review him in the Quar- terly ; and he quarrelled with his publisher, Kest Fenner, for no reason whatever. His argument, put into the form of a syllogism, seems to have been : The article is a venomous article ; Hazlitt is a venomous writer ; ergo, Hazlitt must have written the article. But there were other venomous writers besides Hazlitt in those days, and Coleridge, with his selfishness and want of chivalrous feeling, was naturally not a favourite with his contemporaries. Hazlitt was not blind to Coleridge's faults, and he formed an estimate of his literary merits which the test of time has substantially confirmed. If it were not for ' The Ancient Mariner,' ' Kubla Khan,' ' Genevieve,' some passages in 'Christabel,' and a few chapters of the 'Biographia

Literaria,' Coleridge would have fallen into the oblivion which he prophesied for Walter Scott, or at best would have been remem- bered only by the arid circle of those who search for truth under the autumn leaves of metaphysics. Much of his writing was, to use Hazlitt's expression, " dreary stuff." But in referring to his former friend in his acknowledged writings Hazlitt never ex- ceeded the limits of fair criticism, and 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. Hazlitt was cast in no ordinary mould, but he would indeed have discredited human nature if at one moment he could offer the most eloquent tribute that one man of eminence could pay to another, and in the next sit down to write an article with the aim of ruining the literary reputation of his friend by means of shafts directed against his private character. W. F. PRIDEAUX.

A search in the British Museum Catalogue enables me to confirm MR. R. H. SHEPHERD'S statement, quoted at the last reference, that three editions of 'Christabel' were issued in 1816. I have examined the Museum copy of the third edition, and find it is in every respect an exact replica of the second edition. The title-page runs :

"Christabel, | &c. | By | S. T. Coleridge, Esq. | Third Edition. | London: | Printed for John Murray, Albemarle-Street, | By William Bulmer and Co. Cleveland-Row, | St. James's. | 1816."

The text is that of the first edition through- out. THOMAS HUTCHINSON.

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HOP (9 th S. x. 304). In Timbs's 'Things not Generally Known' (p. 130) it is stated that "'hoppes' are entered in the Customs Roll of Great Yarmouth, 32 Henry VI. (1453-4)." But there is evidence that hops were imported into East Anglia for brewing yet earlier than this ; for in the 'Promptorium Parvulorum,' compiled by a Norfolk friar in 1440, we find the item " Hoppe, sede for bey re. Hummulus^ secimdum extraneos." Then there is the Further item : " Beer, a drynke. Hummu- lina, vel hummuli potus, aut cervisia hummu- lina," as distinguished from ale, cervisia; to
 * he notice of which last drink is appended in

Pynson's edition (1499) the following remark : 'Hie nota bene quod [alej est potus Anglorum." The plant itself was not intro- duced into this country for cultivation untu