GLYCINE:  Song.

“A sunny shaft did I behold,
  From sky to earth it slanted,
And pois’d therein a Bird so bold—­
  Sweet bird! thou wert enchanted! 
He sank, he rose, he twinkled, he troll’d,
  Within that shaft of sunny mist: 
His Eyes of Fire, his Beak of Gold,
  All else of Amethyst! 
And thus he sang:  Adieu!  Adieu! 
  Love’s dreams prove seldom true. 
Sweet month of May! we must away! 
  Far, far away! 
  Today! today!”

In the following month (May 8, 1816) Mr. Coleridge offered Mr. Murray his “Remorse” for publication, with a Preface.  He also offered his poem of “Christabel,” still unfinished.  For the latter Mr. Murray agreed to give him seventy guineas, “until the other poems shall be completed, when the copyright shall revert to the author,” and also L20 for permission to publish the poem entitled “Kubla Khan.”

Next month (June 6) Murray allowed Coleridge L50 for an edition of “Zapolya:  A Christmas Tale,” which was then in MS.; and he also advanced him another L50 for a play which was still to be written.  “Zapolya” was afterwards entrusted to another publisher (Rest Fenner), and Coleridge repaid Murray L50.  Apparently (see letter of March 29, 1817) Murray very kindly forewent repayment of the second advance of L50.  There was, of course, no obligation to excuse a just debt, but the three issues of “Christabel” had resulted in a net profit of a little over L100 to the publisher.

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

HIGHGATE, July 4, 1816.

I have often thought that there might be set on foot a review of old books, i.e., of all works important or remarkable, the authors of which are deceased, with a probability of a tolerable sale, if only the original plan were a good one, and if no articles were admitted but from men who understood and recognized the Principles and Rules of Criticism, which should form the first number.  I would not take the works chronologically, but according to the likeness or contrast of the kind of genius—­ex. gr.  Jeremy Taylor, Milton (his prose works), and Burke—­Dante and Milton—­Scaliger and Dr. Johnson.  Secondly, if especial attention were paid to all men who had produced, or aided in producing, any great revolution in the Taste or opinions of an age, as Petrarch, Ulrich von Hutten, etc. (here I will dare risk the charge of self-conceit by referring to my own parallel of Voltaire and Erasmus, of Luther and Rousseau in the seventh number of “The Friend “).  Lastly, if proper care was taken that in every number of the Review there should be a fair proportion of positively amusing matter, such as a review of Paracelsus, Cardan, Old Fuller; a review of Jest Books, tracing the various metempsychosis of the same joke through all ages and countries; a History of Court Fools, for which a laborious German has furnished ample and highly interesting materials; foreign writers, though alive, not to be excluded, if only their works are of established character in their own country, and scarcely heard of, much less translated, in English literature.  Jean Paul Richter would supply two or three delightful articles.