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 might crumple a delicate and beautifully wrought fabric to prove that it has not the wearing qualities of a blacksmith's apron, Hazlitt seized upon the ethereal story of _Christabel_, with its wealth of mediæval and romantic imagery, and held up to ridicule the incidents that did not conform to modern English conceptions of life. It requires no great art to produce such a critique; the same method was applied to _Christabel_ with hardly less success by the anonymous hack of the _Anti-Jacobin_. Whatever may have been Hazlitt's motives, we cannot understand how a critic of his unquestioned ability could quote with ridicule some of the very finest lines of _Kubla Khan_, and expect his readers to concur with his opinion. The lack of taste was more apparent because he quoted, with qualified praise, six lines of no extraordinary merit from _Christabel_ and insisted, that with this one exception, there was not a couplet in the whole poem that achieved the standard of a newspaper poetry-corner