Book II

. Chap. 13.

267. ‘_Catch glimpses_,’ _etc._ Cf. Wordsworth’s Sonnet, ‘The world is too much with us,’ etc.

‘_I also was an Arcadian._’ Cf. vol. VI. (_Table Talk_), p. 27 and note.

268. ‘_Sithence no fairy lights_,’ _etc._ Sneyd Davies, _To the Honourable and Reverend F. C._ See _ante_, note to p. 224.

_Happy are they_, _etc._ Hazlitt seems to have been fond of this passage. See vol. IV. (_Reply to Malthus_), p. 104, and vol. III. (_Political Essays_), note to p. 266.

ESSAY ON MANNERS

This essay, No. XVIII. of the _Round Table_ series, was republished in _Winterslow_. Part of it Hazlitt himself used in the essay ‘On Manner’ in _The Round Table_. See vol. I. pp. 44–7 and notes.

269. _The Flower and Leaf._ This poem is not now regarded as Chaucer’s. Cf. vol. V. (_Lectures on the English Poets_), p. 27 and note.

271. ‘_The painted birds_,’ _etc._ Dryden, _The Flower and the Leaf_, _etc._, ll. 46–53, 102–152.

272. _Lord Chesterfield’s character of the Duke of Marlborough_, _etc._ The rest of the essay from this point is in vol. I. (see pp. 44–7 and notes).

KEAN’S BAJAZET, ETC.

This theatrical notice is proved to be Hazlitt’s by the passage (p. 276) beginning ‘Happy age, when the utmost stretch of a morning’s study,’ etc., which is repeated in the Lecture ‘On Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh, and Farquhar.’ See vol. VIII. p. 70. Rowe’s _Tamerlane_ was first produced in 1702.

274. _Miss Stephens’s reappearance in Polly._ Cf. vol. VIII. pp. 193–5.

275. ‘_Full of sound_,’ _etc._ _Macbeth_, Act V. Sc. 5.

‘_A load to sink a navy._’ _Henry VIII._ Act III. Sc. 2.

_Ambition as the hunger of noble minds._ See _Tamerlane_, Act II. Sc. 2.

276. _The Country Girl._ Produced originally in 1766, an adaptation by Garrick of _The Country Wife_ of Wycherley. Cf. vol. VIII. p. 76. Mrs. Mardyn, Mrs. Alsop, and the actors here referred to are dealt with by Hazlitt in _A View of the English Stage_.

DOCTRINE OF PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY

This paper, signed ‘W,’ is clearly Hazlitt’s. Cf. the Lecture on the same subject, _ante_, pp. 48–74. The essay is No. XXVII. of the _Round Table_ series.

277. ‘_For I had learnt_,’ _etc._ Cf. Wordsworth, _Lines composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey_, 95–102.

278. ‘_Threshold of Jove’s throne._’ Cf. ‘Before the starry threshold of Jove’s court,’ _Comus_, I.

279. ‘_Praise and blame_,’ _etc._ Cf. _ante_, p. 56.

280. ‘_A good favour_,’ _etc._ Loosely quoted from _Much Ado About Nothing_, Act III. Sc. 3.

282. _Marvell and his leg of mutton._ Hazlitt refers to the story of Danby’s unsuccessful attempt to win over Marvell to the court. One version of the story is that in Danby’s presence Marvell summoned his servant and said to him, ‘Pray, what had I for dinner yesterday?’ ‘A shoulder of mutton.’ ‘And what do you allow me to-day?’ ‘The remainder hashed.’ Marvell then added to Danby, ‘And to-morrow, my lord, I shall have the sweet blade-bone broiled.’

‘_Allemagne_,’ _etc._ _De l’Allemagne_, Preface.

‘_But there is matter_,’ _etc._ Wordsworth, _Hart-Leap Well_, 95–6.

PARALLEL PASSAGES IN VARIOUS POETS

No. XXVIII. of the Round Table series, and signed ‘W.’ The long passages from Voltaire, etc. have been indicated by the first and last line.

282. _Zaire._ 1732.

283. ‘_Soft you_,’ _etc._ _Othello_, Act V. Sc. 2.

‘_Vanished_ [melted] _into thin air_.’ _The Tempest_, Act IV. Sc. 1.

_Ducis._ Jean François Ducis (1733–1816), who adapted some of Shakespeare’s plays for the stage.

283. _‘As flat,’ etc._ Cf. ‘He has crushed his nose, Susannah says, as flat as a pancake to his face.’ _Tristram Shandy_, III. 27.

284. _Potter._ Robert Potter’s (1721–1804) translation of Æschylus appeared in 1777.

_‘When I had gazed,’ etc._ _Poems on the Naming of Places_, II. 51 _et seq._

_We have once already attempted, etc._ In three articles in _The Examiner_. Cf. _ante_, pp. 572–5, and vol. I. (_The Round Table_), pp. 111–125.

_‘In my former days of bliss,’ etc._ From ‘The Shepherd’s Hunting’ (1615).

_THE DUKE D’ENGHIEN_

In addition to the essays reprinted in the text from _The Examiner_ of 1815 there are four letters signed ‘Peter Pickthank’ on the Duke D’Enghien, to which reference should be made. These appeared on September 24, October 8, November 19, and December 10, and were written in reply to a correspondent signing himself ‘Fair Play.’ The controversy arose out of an article (September 3) entitled ‘Chateaubriand, The Quack,’ which contained a casual reference to the Duke D’Enghien, ‘whom Buonaparte is accused of having murdered because he was not willing that he, the said Royal Duke, should assassinate him.’ ‘Fair Play’ seized on this passage and protested (September 10) against the implied defence of the Duke D’Enghien’s execution. ‘Peter Pickthank’ replied (September 24), and the correspondence was kept up till near the end of the year, ‘Fair Play’ contributing letters on October 1, October 29, and November 26. ‘Peter Pickthank’s’ letters contain many of Hazlitt’s stock quotations and personal allusions (to Dr. Stoddart, for example); they embody exactly his political opinions, and altogether the internal evidence of their having been written by him is very strong. Inasmuch, however, as there is not absolute certainty in the matter, and a considerable part of the letters would have been unintelligible without including ‘Fair Play’s’ letters as well, the editors have felt justified in omitting the whole correspondence. An editorial note at the end of ‘Peter Pickthank’s’ third letter (November 19) states that ‘this article has been delayed in order to soften some of the asperities.’

MR. LOCKE A GREAT PLAGIARIST

No. XXXI. of the Round Table series, and signed ‘W.H.’

285. _‘The very head,’ etc._ _Othello_, Act I. Sc. 3.

‘_A justly exploded_ [decried] _author_.’ See _ante_, p. 167 and note.

_Professor Stewart’s very elegant Dissertation._ Prefixed to the Supplement to the 4th and 5th editions of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ (1816).

286. _‘Fame is no plant,’ etc._ _Lycidas_ 78–82.

287. _‘The greatest and as it were radical distinction,’ etc._ Bacon, _Aphorisms_, LV.

‘_That strain I heard was of a higher mood._’ _Lycidas_, 87.

288. _What is most remarkable, etc._ This passage on wit will be found in an expanded form in _Lectures on the English Comic Writers_. See vol. VIII. pp. 18–21.

_Three papers, which we propose to write._ These papers do not appear to have been written.

289. ‘_The laborious fooleries._’ See _ante_, note to p. 239.

290. _‘The tenth transmitter,’ etc._ Cf. ‘No tenth transmitter of a foolish face.’ Savage, _The Bastard_, 8.

‘_The mind alone is formative._’ See _ante_, p. 176.

[THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED]

In _The Examiner_ for March 3, 1816 appeared the following note:—‘A correspondent who signs himself J.W. thinks we ought to bring proofs of Mr. Locke’s want of originality as the founder of a system. We recommend him, if he is curious on this subject, to read the first eighty pages of Hobbes’s _Leviathan_, if the name does not alarm him. After that, if he is not satisfied and repeats his request, perhaps we may attend to it.’ On March 31 (Round Table No. XXXIV.) Hazlitt brings forward his proofs in a long paper which consists chiefly of extracts from Locke, Hobbes and other philosophers. The essay begins as follows:—

‘We have been required to give proof of Mr. Locke’s want of originality as a metaphysical reasoner, and of the claims of Hobbes to be considered as the founder of the modern system of the philosophy of the human mind.

‘Here then it is. But at the same time we would observe, that we do not think ourselves bound to give this proof to those who have demanded it (somewhat impatiently) at our hands. It was sufficient for us to have stated our opinion on this subject, and to have referred the curious expressly to the sources from which they might satisfy themselves of the truth or hollowness of our assertion. To our readers in general we owe some apology for alluding to such subjects at all. But to the point.—We have said that the principles of the modern school of metaphysics are all to be found, pure, entire, connected, and explicitly stated, in the writings of Hobbes: that Mr. Locke borrowed the leading principle of that philosophy from Hobbes, without understanding or without admitting the system in general, concerning which he always seems to entertain two opinions: that succeeding writers have followed up Mr. Locke’s general principle into its legitimate consequences, and have arrived at exactly the same conclusions as Hobbes, but that being ignorant of the name and writings of Hobbes, they have with one accord and with great injustice attributed the merit of the original discovery of that system to Mr. Locke, as having made the first start, and having gone further in it than any one else before him.

‘The principles of the modern system, of which Mr. Locke is the reputed and Mr. Hobbes the real founder, are chiefly the following:—

1. That all our ideas are derived from external objects, by means of the senses alone, and are merely repetitions of our sensible impressions.

2. That as nothing exists out of the mind but matter and motion, so the mind itself, with all its operations, is nothing but matter and motion.

3. That thoughts are single, or that we can have only one idea at a time; in other words, that there are no complex ideas in the mind.

4. That we have no general or abstract ideas.

5. That the only principle of connection between one idea and another is _association_, or their previous connection in sense.

6. That reason and understanding are resolvable entirely into the mechanism of language.

7. and 8. That the sense of pleasure and pain is the sole spring of

## action, and self-interest the source of all our affections.

9. That the mind acts from necessity, and consequently is not a moral or accountable agent.

[_The manner of stating and reasoning on this last point, viz. the moral and practical consequences of the doctrine of necessity is the only circumstance of importance, in which the modern philosophers differ from Hobbes._]

10. That there is no such thing as genius, or a difference in the natural capacities or dispositions of men, the mind being originally alike passive to all impressions, and becoming whatever it is from circumstances &c., &c.

‘That these are the most striking positions of the moderns with respect to the human mind, is what every one, familiar with the writers since Locke, as Berkeley, Hartley, Hume, Priestley, Horne Tooke, Beddoes, among ourselves, and Helvetius, Condillac, Mirabaud, Condorcet &c., among the French, will readily allow: that most of them are to be found in the _Essay on Human Understanding_, mixed up in a state of inextricable confusion with common-place and common sense notions, now advanced, now retracted, the arguments on one side of the question now prevailing through an endless labyrinth of explanation, now those on the other, and now both opinions asserted and denied in the same sentence is what is equally well known to the readers of Locke and his commentators. That the same system came from the mind of Hobbes, not hesitating, stammering, puling, drivelling, ricketty, a sickly half birth, to be brought up by hand, to be nursed and dandled into common life and existence, but just the reverse of all this, full grown, completely proportioned and articulated, compact, stamped in all its lineaments, with the vigour and decision of the author’s mind, is what we have now to shew.’

The extracts follow, interspersed with brief comments by Hazlitt, and the essay concludes as follows:—

‘To what Mr. Hobbes has written on this subject [Liberty and Necessity] nothing has been added nor can be taken away. We agree to every word of it, and the more heartily, because it is the only one of all the points which have been stated on which we do. In speaking of the popular notions of liberty, in his controversy with a foolish Bishop of that day (Bramhall), he says, “In fine, that freedom which men commonly find in books, that which the poets chaunt in the theatres, and the shepherds on the mountains, that which the pastors teach in the churches, and the doctors in the universities, and that which the common people in the markets, and all mankind in the whole world do assent unto, is the same that I assent unto, namely, that a man hath freedom to do if he will; but whether he hath freedom to will, is a question which it seems neither the Bishop nor they ever thought on.” Hobbes was as superior to Locke as a writer, as he was as a reasoner. He had great powers both of wit and imagination. In short he was a great man, not because he was a great metaphysician, but he was a great metaphysician because he was a great man.

‘It has been thought, that the neglect into which Hobbes’s metaphysical speculations have fallen was originally owing to the obloquy excited by the irreligious and despotical tendency of his other writings. But in this he has also been unfairly dealt with. Locke borrowed his fundamental ideas of government from him; and there is not a word directly levelled at religion in any of his works. At least, his aristocratical notions and his want of religion must have, in some measure, balanced one another; and Charles II. had his picture hanging in his bed-room, though the Bishops wished to have him burnt. The true reason of the fate which this author’s writings met with was, that his views of things were too original and comprehensive to be immediately understood, without passing through the hands of several successive generations of commentators and interpreters. Ignorance of another’s meaning is a sufficient cause of fear, and fear produces hatred: hence arose the rancour and suspicion of his adversaries, who, to quote some fine lines of Spenser,

——‘Stood all astonished like a sort of steers ’Mongst whom some beast of strange and foreign race Unawares is chanced far straying from his peers; So did their ghastly gaze betray their hidden fears.’[73]

_COLERIDGE’S ‘CHRISTABEL’_

On June 2, 1816, _The Examiner_ published a review of Coleridge’s _Christabel_, as to the authorship of which there has been some discussion. See _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser. XI. pp. 171 and 271. Mr. Dykes Campbell (_The Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge_, p. 606) is disposed to attribute the review to Hazlitt. As in the case of the _Edinburgh Review_ notice of _Christabel_ (see vol. X. of the present edition, pp. 411–418), Hazlitt’s authorship cannot be regarded as absolutely certain. The review is as follows:—

‘The fault of Mr. Coleridge is, that he comes to no conclusion. He is a man of that universality of genius, that his mind hangs suspended between poetry and prose, truth and falsehood, and an infinity of other things, and from an excess of capacity, he does little or nothing. Here are two unfinished poems, and a fragment. _Christabel_, which has been much read and admired in manuscript, is now for the first time confided to the public. The _Vision of Kubla Khan_ still remains a profound secret; for only a few lines of it ever were written.[74]

‘The poem of _Christabel_ sets out in the following manner:

“’Tis the middle of night by the castle clock, And the owls have awaken’d the crowing cock; Tu—whit! Tu—whoo! And hark, again! the crowing cock, How drowsily it crew. Sir Leoline, the Baron rich, Hath a toothless mastiff bitch; From her kennel beneath the rock She makes answer to the clock, Four for the quarters and twelve for the hour; Ever and aye, moonshine or shower, Sixteen short howls, not over loud; Some say, she sees my lady’s shroud.”

‘We wonder that Mr. Murray, who has an eye for things, should suffer this “mastiff bitch” to come into his shop. Is she a sort of Cerberus to fright away the critics? But—gentlemen, she is toothless.

‘There is a dishonesty as well as affectation in all this. The secret of this pretended contempt for the opinion of the public, is that it is a sorry subterfuge for our self-love. The poet, uncertain of the approbation of his readers, thinks he shews his superiority to it by shocking their feelings at the outset, as a clown, who is at a loss how to behave himself, begins by affronting the company. This is what is called _throwing a crust to the critics_. If the beauties of _Christabel_ should not be sufficiently admired, Mr. Coleridge may lay it all to two lines which he had too much manliness to omit in complaisance to the bad taste of his contemporaries.

‘We the rather wonder at this bold proceeding in the author, as his courage has cooled in the course of the publication, and he has omitted, from mere delicacy, a line which is absolutely necessary to the understanding the whole story. The _Lady Christabel_, wandering in the forest by moonlight, meets a lady in apparently great distress, to whom she offers her assistance and protection, and takes her home with her to her own chamber. This woman,

——“beautiful to see, Like a lady of a far countree,”

is a witch. Who she is else, what her business is with _Christabel_, upon what motives, to what end her sorceries are to work, does not appear at present; but this much we know, that she is a witch, and that _Christabel’s_ dread of her arises from her discovering this circumstance, which is told in a single line, which line, from an exquisite refinement in efficiency,[75] is here omitted. When the unknown lady gets to _Christabel’s_ chamber, and is going to undress, it is said—

“Then drawing in her breath aloud Like one that shuddered, she unbound The cincture from beneath her breast: Her silken robe and inner vest Dropt to her feet, and full in view _Behold! her bosom and half her side_— A sight to dream of, not to tell! And she is to sleep by Christabel!”

‘The manuscript runs thus, or nearly thus:—

“Behold her bosom and half her side— _Hideous, deformed, and pale of hue_.”

‘This line is necessary to make common sense of the first and second part. “It is the keystone that makes up the arch.”[76] For that reason Mr. Coleridge left it out. Now this is a greater physiological curiosity than even the fragment of _Kubla Khan_.

‘In parts of _Christabel_ there is a great deal of beauty, both of thought, imagery, and versification; but the effect of the general story is dim, obscure, and visionary. It is more like a dream than a reality. The mind, in reading it, is spell-bound. The sorceress seems to act without power—Christabel to yield without resistance. The faculties are thrown into a state of metaphysical suspense and theoretical imbecility. The poet, like the witch in _Spenser_, is evidently

“Busied about some wicked gin.”[77]

But we do not foresee what he will make of it. There is something disgusting at the bottom of his subject, which is but ill glossed over by a veil of Della Cruscan sentiment and fine writing—like moon-beams playing on a charnel-house, or flowers strewed on a dead body. Mr. Coleridge’s style is essentially superficial, pretty, ornamental, and he has forced it into the service of a story which is petrific. In the midst of moonlight, and fluttering ringlets, and flitting clouds, and enchanted echoes, and airy abstractions of all sorts, there is one genuine outburst of humanity, worthy of the author, when no dream oppresses him, no spell binds him. We give the passage entire:—’

[Here follow ll. 403–430 of _Christabel_, beginning ‘But when he heard the lady’s tale.’]

‘Why does not Mr. Coleridge always write in this manner, that we might always read him? The description of the Dream of Bracy the bard, is also very beautiful and full of power.

‘The conclusion of the second part of _Christabel_, about “the little limber elf,” is to us absolutely incomprehensible. _Kubla Khan_, we think, only shews that Mr. Coleridge can write better _nonsense_ verses than any man in England. It is not a poem, but a musical composition.

“A damsel with a dulcimer In a vision once I saw: It was an Abyssinian maid, And on her dulcimer she play’d, Singing of Mount Abora.”

‘We could repeat these lines to ourselves not the less often for not knowing the meaning of them.’

In a sketch of Coleridge which appeared in _The Examiner_ for Oct. 21, 1821, Leigh Hunt quotes the lines from _Kubla Khan_ (‘A damsel with a dulcimer,’ etc.) and says: ‘We could repeat such verses ... down a green glade, a whole summer’s morning’; but in spite of this and a few other verbal similarities, a comparison of the sketch with the review does not support the theory that the latter was written by Leigh Hunt. Possibly he wrote a few lines here and there, but the review as a whole is far more suggestive of Hazlitt.

SHAKESPEAR’S FEMALE CHARACTERS

No. XLIII. of the _Round Table_ series. It is partly reproduced in _Characters of Shakespear’s Plays_. See especially the essays on _Cymbeline_ and _Othello_ (vol. I. 179 _et seq._ and 200 _et seq._ and notes).

290. _Miss Peggy._ See _ante_, p. 276.

291. ‘_Calls true love_,’ _etc._ _Romeo and Juliet_, Act III. Sc. 2.

295. ‘_Books, dreams_,’ _etc._ _Personal Talk_, ll. 33 _et seq._

_Tate._ Nahum Tate’s _King Lear_ was brought out in 1681.

‘_And her heart beats_,’ _etc._ _Troilus and Cressida_, Act III. Sc. 2.

296. ‘_Sir, the fairest flowers_,’ _etc._ _A Winter’s Tale_, Act IV. Sc. 4.

_SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY OF THE GOOD OLD TIMES_

Three papers appeared in _The Examiner_ for April 6, April 13, and April 20, 1817, under the heading of ‘Sketches of the History of the Good Old Times before the French Revolution, when Kings and Priests did what they pleased, by the grace of God.’ In these essays a French anti-Bourbon book, the title of which is not given, is made the text for a most unflattering review of the characters of a number of kings, from Hugh Capet to Louis XVI. The subject would naturally attract Hazlitt, and indeed it may be said that the essays are almost certainly his. As, however, the internal evidence, though very strong, does not prove his authorship to be absolutely certain, it has been thought better not to include the essays in the present edition.

MISS O’NEILL’S WIDOW CHEERLY

This and the five succeeding theatrical papers from _The Examiner_ of 1817 have been inserted in the text because the internal evidence seems to leave no room for doubt that they were written by Hazlitt. It is clear from _A View of the English Stage_ that he was writing theatrical notices for _The Examiner_ during the whole of the period in question (Jan.–May, 1817).

297. _The best actress ... with one great exception_, _etc._ For this comparison of Miss O’Neill with Mrs. Siddons, cf. vol. VIII. p. 198, and for Miss O’Neill’s failure in comedy, _ibid._ p. 291.

297. _The Soldier’s Daughter._ By Andrew Cherry, produced in 1804.

298. ‘_The insipid levelling morality_,’ _etc._ See Lamb’s footnote to Middleton and Rowley’s _A Fair Quarrel_. Hazlitt quotes the passage elsewhere.

PENELOPE AND THE DANSOMANIE

299. ‘_Like to see the unmerited fall_,’ _etc._ Cf. Burke, _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ (_Select Works_, ed. Payne, II. 164).

300. _The Gentleman who is understood_, _etc._ William Ayrton (1777–1858), who was musical director at the King’s Theatre in 1817 and again in 1821.

_Of the Dansomanie_, _etc._ A comparison of this passage with a reference to the ‘Dansomanie’ in vol. VIII. p. 437 is conclusive as to Hazlitt’s authorship of this notice.

‘_Such were the joys_,’ _etc._ Bickerstaffe, _Love in a Village_,

## Act II. Sc. 1.

‘_Roll on_,’ _etc._ Ossian, _The Songs of Selma_.

The notice concludes with a long quotation from Colley Cibber, introduced by the following paragraph: ‘As the present season may be considered as a sort of revival of the Opera, the following particulars of its first introduction into this country may not be unacceptable to the reader. They are taken from _Colley Cibber’s Memoirs of himself_, p. 316.’

OROONOKO

This tragedy by Thomas Southerne (1660–1746) was produced in 1696. See _post_, note to p. 303 (on _Imogine_), for conclusive proof of Hazlitt’s authorship of this notice.

301. _The success of his Richard II._ This passage, though the conclusion drawn by Hazlitt is somewhat different, may be compared with his notice of Kean’s Richard II. (vol. VIII. p. 223).

‘_The melting mood._’ _Othello_, Act V. Sc. 2.

302. ‘_The devil has not_,’ _etc._ Cf. _Macbeth_, Act V. Sc 3.

303. _Imogine._ In Maturin’s _Bertram_. Cf. the notice of that play in _A View of the English Stage_ (vol. VIII. p. 307). In one of Hazlitt’s theatrical papers in _The London Magazine_ (_ibid._ p. 391), he says of Miss Somerville’s (Mrs. Bunn’s) voice that ‘it resembles the deep murmur of a hive of bees in spring-tide, and the words drop like honey from her lips.’

‘_The music of her honey-vows._’ Cf. ‘That suck’d the honey of his music vows.’ _Hamlet_, Act III. Sc. 1.

‘_He often has beguiled us_,’ _etc._ Cf. _Othello_, Act I. Sc. 3.

_Gray, the poet_, _etc._ See a letter to Horace Walpole, September, 1737 (_Letters_, ed. Tovey, i. 8).

THE PANNEL AND THE RAVENS

A comparison of this paper with _A View of the English Stage_ and the other dramatic essays in vol. VIII., makes it perfectly clear that Hazlitt is the writer.

304. _The Pannel._ By John Philip Kemble, produced at Drury Lane in 1788.

‘_Balsam of fierabras._’ Described by Don Quixote. See _Don Quixote_, I. I. 2.

304. _The howling of the rabble._ The Regent had been attacked on his return to St. James’s Palace after opening Parliament on March 28, 1817.

_The wax figures at Mrs. Salmon’s._ See _ante_, p. 175.

‘_Circe and the Sirens three._’ _Comus_, 253.

_Miss Stephens._ Hazlitt had noticed her first appearance. See vol. VIII. p. 192.

_Mr. Fawcett._ John Fawcett (1768–1837) was manager of Covent Garden theatre.

_Till Miss O’Neill is tired_, _etc._ See vol. VIII. note to p. 308.

‘_The ravens are hoarse_,’ _etc._ Cf. _Macbeth_, Act I. Sc. 5.

_Toujours perdrix._ See vol. IV. (_The Spirit of The Age_), p. 275 and note.

_Mr. Canning._ Cf. _post_, p. 336 note.

_The Ravens_, _etc._ See vol. VIII. note to p. 353.

_The Maid and Magpie_, _etc._ See vol. VIII. pp. 244 and 279.

‘_And choughs_,’ _etc._ Cf. _Macbeth_, Act III. Sc. 4.

_The Maid of Palisseau._ _The Magpie, or the Maid of Palaiseau_, a version attributed to T. J. Dibdin of _La Pie Voleuse_, produced at Dury Lane, Sept. 12, 1815.

_Reminded us of her mother’s._ Mrs. Alsop was daughter of Mrs. Jordan.

JOHN GILPIN

305. ‘_And when he next_,’ _etc._ _John Gilpin_, St. 63.

306. ‘_The turnpike men_,’ _etc. Ibid._ St. 29 and 30.

‘_First, last, and midst._’ Cf. _Paradise Lost_, V. 165. Quoted by Hazlitt more than once.

‘_That ligament_,’ _etc._ Hazlitt elsewhere quotes this passage from _Tristram Shandy_ (