I have been surprised, when perusing Dr. Forbes's highly amusing narrative of his holiday in Switzerland (pp. 28-9.), to find that he identifies Roland with the hero of Schiller's beautiful ballad, who rejoiced in the unromantic appellation of _Ritter Toggenburg_. _That_ unhappy lover, according to the poet, being rejected by his fair one, who could only bestow on him a sister's affection, sought the Holy Land in despair, and tried to forget his grief; but returning again to breathe the same air with his beloved, and finding her already a professed nun, built himself a hut, whence he could see her at her convent window. Here he watched day by day, as the poet beautifully says; and here he was found, _dead_, "still in the attitude of the watcher."
"Blickte nach dem Kloster drüben, Blickte Stunden lang Nach dem Fenster seiner Lieben Bis das Fenster klang, Bis die Liebliche sich zeigte, Bis das theure Bild Sich in 's Thal herunter neigte Ruhig, engelmild. . . . . . . "Und so sass er viele Tage Sass viel' Jahre lang, Harrend ohne Schmerz und Klage Bis das Fenster klang, Bis die Liebliche sich zeigte, &c. &c.
"Unde so sass er, eine Leiche Eines Morgens da, Nach dem Fenster noch das bleiche Stille Antlitz sah."
Was this Ritter Toggenburg, the hero of Schiller's ballad, the nephew of Charlemagne, Roland, who fell at Roncesvalles? Is not Dr. Forbes in error in ascribing the Ritter's fate to Roland? Are they not two distinct persons? Or is Mrs. Hemans wrong in her version of the story? I only quote from memory:
"Roland the Brave, the brave Roland! False tidings reach'd the Rhenish strand That he had fall'n in fight! And thy faithful bosom swoon'd with pain, Thou fairest maid of Allemain. Why so rash has she ta'en the veil In yon Nonnenwerder's cloister pale? For the fatal vow was hardly spoken, And the fatal mantel o'er her flung. When the Drachenfels' echoes rung-- 'Twas her own dear warrior's horn! . . . . . . She died; he sought the battle plain, And loud was Gallia's wail, When Roland, the flower of chivalry, Fell at Roncesvalles!"
I shall be glad to have a clear idea of the true Roland and his story.
An amusing treatise might be written on the variations in shape of the common tobacco-pipe since its first introduction into the country. Hundreds of specimens of old pipe-heads might soon be procured, and especially in the neighbourhood of London, where the same ground has been tilled for gardening purposes perhaps { 373} some hundreds of years, and has received fresh supplies year after year from the ash-bin and dust-heap. I have about a dozen in my possession, which probably belong to various periods from the beginning of the seventeenth to the end of the eighteenth century. The dearness of tobacco in the early times of its use is evinced by the smallness of the bowls, for many of them would hold at most not half a thimbleful of tobacco; while the shank, where it joins the bowl, is nearly double the thickness of that in use at the present day. If I recollect aright, the pipe as represented in Hogarth seems but little larger in the bowl than that in use a century before; the shape being in both the same, very much like that of a barrel. The sides of the bowl seem formerly to have been made of double or treble the thickness of those now in use. This will account for the good preservation in which they may be found after having been in the ground one or two centuries. The clay tobacco-pipe probably attained its present size and slimness, and (very nearly) its present shape, about the beginning of this century. I am well aware that, by many, all this will be esteemed as "in tenui labor," but, for my part, I look upon no reminiscences of the past, however humble, as deserving to be slighted or consigned to oblivion. Even the humble tobacco-pipe may be made the vehicle of some interesting information. Will any of your correspondents favour your other readers with some farther information on this subject?