III.
[68] Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. XI p. 257.
[69] Quarterly Review 1817, vol. XVII p. 248; a critique, by Maturin, of Sheil’s Apostate.
[70] Elton II, p. 310.
[71] New Monthly Magazine and Universal Register 1816, vol. V p. 451.
[72] Edinburgh Review 1818, vol. XXX p. 234; a critique, by Scott, of Maturin’s Women.
[73] In his letter to Terry, alluded to above, Scott says that Maturin ‘had our old friend Satan (none of your sneaking St. John Street devils, but the archfiend himself) brought on the stage bodily. I believe I have exorcised the foul fiend, for, though in reading he was a most terrible fellow, I feared for his reception in public.’ In the passage however which he quotes, the demon is only described by Bertram, and it is just this description whose beauty Scott, in his article in the Quarterly Review, is commending. The letter was apparently composed in a moment of absent-mindedness.
[74] Melmoth the Wanderer 1892, p. LIII.
[75] Elton I, p. 218.
[76] British Review 1816, vol. VIII p. 64.
[77] Monthly Review 1816, vol. 80 p. 179.
[78] Eclectic Review 1816, vol. VI p. 379.
[79] New Monthly Magazine 1827.
[80] Bertram, ou le Château de St. Aldobrand, tragédie en cinque actes traduite librement de l’Anglais, par M. M. Taylor et Charles Nodier, Paris 1821. The quoted sentence is from the preface by the translators.
[81] Gustave Planche, Portraits Littéraires, Paris 1836, p. 33 foll.
[82] Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. XI p. 273.
[83] Irish Quarterly Review 1852; cf. also Melmoth the Wanderer 1892, pp. XVI-XVII.
[84] In Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine; the article is reprinted in Biographia Literaria, Oxford 1907, vol. II p. 193 foll.
[85] Moore, p. 367.
[86] Coleridge’s irritation at the play may have been partly due to the above-mentioned article in the British Review, which presents a critique at once upon Christabel and Bertram and comes to the conclusion that ‘the poem which has been denominated (by Lord Byron) “wild and singularly original and beautiful” is, in our judgment, a weak and singularly nonsensical and affected performance; but the play of Bertram is a production of undoubted genius.’
[87] Goethe-Jahrbuch 1891, vol. XII p. 23; quoted by Richter, p. 299.
[88] John Genest, Some account of the English Stage from the Restoration in 1660 to 1830, Bath 1832, vol. VIII p. 534.
[89] Douglas Jerrold’s Shilling Magazine 1846.
[90] New Monthly Magazine 1827.
[91] The Irishman 1849.
[92] Gentleman’s Magazine 1825, vol. I p. 84.
[93] Dublin and London Magazine 1826.
[94] Life of Carleton, vol. I p. 226.
[95] Douglas Jerrold’s Shilling Magazine 1846.
[96] New Monthly Magazine 1827.
[97] Smiles, p. 295.
[98] Moore, p. 358.
[99] ibid., p. 362.
[100] New Monthly Magazine or Universal Register 1819.
[101] Monthly Review 1817, vol. 83 p. 391.
[102] Smiles, p. 293.
[103] W. Torrens McCullagh, Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Richard Lalor Sheil, London 1855, p. 95.