* * * * *



262.—To Lord Holland.

Cheltenham, Oct. 14, 1812.

MY DEAR LORD,—I perceive that the papers, yea, even Perry's [1], are somewhat ruffled at the injudicious preference of the Committee. My friend Perry has, indeed, 'et tu, Brute'-d me rather scurvily, for which I will send him, for the 'Morning Chronicle', the next epigram I scribble, as a token of my full forgiveness.

Do the Committee mean to enter into no explanation of their proceedings? You must see there is a leaning towards a charge of partiality. You will, at least, acquit me of any great anxiety to push myself before so many elder and better anonymous, to whom the twenty guineas (which I take to be about two thousand pounds 'Bank' currency) and the honour would have been equally welcome. "Honour," I see, "hath skill in paragraph-writing."

I wish to know how it went off at the second reading, and whether any one has had the grace to give it a glance of approbation. I have seen no paper but Perry's and two Sunday ones. Perry is severe, and the others silent. If, however, you and your Committee are not now dissatisfied with your own judgments, I shall not much embarrass myself about the brilliant remarks of the journals. My own opinion upon it is what it always was, perhaps pretty near that of the public.

Believe me, my dear Lord, etc., etc.

P.S.—My best respects to Lady H., whose smiles will be very consolatory, even at this distance.



[Footnote 1: James Perry (1756-1821) purchased, in 1789, the 'Morning Chronicle', originally established by Woodfall in 1769. In Perry's hands the paper became the leading organ of the Whigs. He was the first editor to introduce a succession of parliamentary reporters. He gathered round him a remarkable staff of contributors, including Ricardo, Sir James Mackintosh, Porson (who married his sister), Charles Lamb, Sheridan, Coleridge, Hazlitt, Lord Campbell, Moore, Campbell, Byron, and Burns. The 'Morning Chronicle' (October 12, 1812) says:

"Mr. Elliston then came forward and delivered the following 'Prize' Address. We cannot boast of the eloquence of the delivery. It was neither gracefully nor correctly recited. The merits of the production itself we submit to the criticism of our readers. We cannot suppose that it was selected as the most poetical composition of all the scores that were submitted to the Committee. But, perhaps by its tenor, by its allusions to the fire, to Garrick, to Siddons, and to Sheridan, it was thought most applicable to the occasion, notwithstanding its being in parts unmusical, and in general tame."

Again (October 14), in a notice of 'Rejected Addresses', the 'Morning Chronicle' returns to the subject:

"A wag has already published a small volume of 'Addresses rejected', in which, with admirable wit, all the poets of the day are assembled, contesting for the Prize Address at Drury Lane. And certainly he has assigned to the pen of Lord B. a superior 'poem' to that which has gained the prize."

The Address was also severely handled in 'A Critique on the Address written by Lord Byron, which was Spoken at the opening of the New Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, October' 10, 1812. By Lord————(London, no date). The author is "astonished at the glaring faults and general insipidity" of the address, and, after a detailed criticism, concludes that "public indignation" will sympathize with the rejected poets, and "pursue the rival patrons and the rival bard."

Rogers, writing to Moore, October 22, 1812 ('Memoirs, etc., of Thomas Moore', vol. viii. p. 123), says,

"Poor Byron! what I hear and read of his prologue makes me very angry. Of such value is public favour! So a man is to be tried by a copy of verses thrown off perhaps at hazard, and 'invita Minerva!'"]



* * * * *



263.—To John Hanson.

Cheltenham, Octr. 18th, 1812.

Dear Sir,—With perfect confidence in you I sign the note; but is not Claughton's delay very strange? let us take care what we are about. I answered his letter, which I enclose to you, very cautiously; the wines and China, etc., I will not demur much upon; but the vase and cup (not the skull cup) and some little coffee things brought from the East, or made for the purpose of containing relics brought from thence, I will not part with, and if he refuses to ratify, I will take such steps as the Law will allow on the form of the contract for compelling him to ratify it.

Pray write. I am invited to Lord O.'s and Lord H.'s; but if you wish very much to meet me I can come to town.

I suppose the tythe purchase will be made in my name. What is to be done with Deardon? [1]

Mrs. M[assingberd] [2] is dead, and I would wish something settled for the Daughter who is still responsible. Will you give a glance into that business, and if possible first settle something about the Annuities.

I shall perhaps draw within a L100 next week, but I will delay for your answer on C.'s business.

Ever yours, sincerely and affectionately,

BYRON.

My love to all the family.

I wish to do something for young Rushton, if practicable at Rochdale; if not, think of some situation where he might occupy himself to avoid Idleness, in the mean time.



[Footnote 1: Deardon was the lessee of the Rochdale coal-pits.

"When Mr. France was here," writes Mrs. Byron to Hanson, July 13, 1811 (Koelbing's 'Englische Studien', vol. xxv. p. I53), "he told me there had been an injunction procured to prevent Deardin from working the Coal Pits that was in dispute between Lord Byron and him, but since France was here, there has been a Man from Lancashire who says they are worked by Deardin the same as ever. I also heard that the Person you sent down to take an account of the Coals was bribed by Deardin, and did not give an account of half of what was got."]

[Footnote 2: For Mrs. Massingberd, see 'Letters', vol. i. p. 100, at end of 'note' 3 [Footnote 1 of Letter 52]. Byron's pecuniary transactions, though not unimportant in their influence on his career, are difficult to unravel. The following statement, in his own handwriting, with regard to the Annuities was apparently prepared for some legal proceedings, and is dated January 16, 1812:

"Lord Byron, to the best of his knowledge and recollection, in Dec., 1805—January, 1806 applied to King, in consequence of an advertisement in the papers, who acquainted Lord Byron that his minority prevented all money transactions without the security of competent persons. Through Mr. K. he became acquainted with Mr. Dellevelly, another of the tribe of Israel, and subsequently with a Mr. Howard of Golden Square.

"After many delays, during which Lord B. had interviews with Howard, once, he thinks, in Golden Square, but more frequently in Piccadilly, Mrs. M[assingberd] agreed to become security jointly with her daughter. Lord B. knows Howard's person perfectly well, has not seen him subsequent to the transaction, but recollects Howard's mentioning to him that he, Lord B., was acting imprudently, stating that he made it a rule to advise young men against such proceedings. Lord B. recollects, on the day on which the money was paid, that he remained in the next room till the papers were signed, Mrs. M[assingberd] having stated that the parties wished him to be kept out of sight during the business, and wished to avoid even mentioning his name. Mrs. M[assingberd] deducted the interest for two years and a half, and L100 for Howard's papers."

Two other Annuities were effected, in both of which Mrs. Massingberd figured as a security, and in one the manager of Dorant's Hotel. It was the interest on these minority loans which crippled Byron. Two were still unpaid in 1817.]



* * * * *



264.—To John Murray.

Cheltenham, Oct. 18, 1812,

Dear Sir,—Will you have the goodness to get this Parody of a peculiar kind [1] (for all the first lines are Busby's entire), inserted in several of the papers (correctly—and copied correctly; my hand is difficult)—particularly the 'Morning Chronicle'? Tell Mr. Perry I forgive him all he has said, and may say against my address, but he will allow me to deal with the Doctor—(audi alteram partem)—and not betray me. I cannot think what has befallen Mr. Perry, for of yore we were very good friends;—but no matter, only get this inserted.

I have a poem on Waltzing for you, of which I make you a present; but it must be anonymous. It is in the old style of 'English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers'.

Ever yours,

BYRON.

P.S.—With the next edition of 'Childe Harold' you may print the first fifty or a hundred opening lines of the 'Curse of Minerva' [2] down to the couplet beginning

Mortal ('twas thus she spake), etc.

Of course, the moment the Satire begins, there you will stop, and the opening is the best part.



[Footnote 1: The 'Parenthetical Address', "By Dr. Plagiary," is a parody by Byron of Dr, Busby's 'Address', the original of which will be found in the 'Genuine Rejected Addresses', as well as parodied in 'Rejected Addresses' ("Architectural Atoms"). On October 14 young Busby forced his way on to the stage of Drury Lane, attempted to recite his father's address, and was taken into custody. On the next night, Dr. Busby, speaking from one of the boxes, obtained a hearing for his son, who could not, however, make his voice heard in the theatre. Then another "rejected" author tried to recite his composition, but was hooted down. Order was restored by Raymond reminding the audience that the Chamberlain's licence was necessary for all stage speeches. To the failure of the younger Busby (himself a competitor and the author of an "Unalogue" of fifty-six lines) to make himself heard, Byron alludes in the stage direction to the 'Parenthetical Address'—"to be spoken in an inarticulate voice by Master P." The 'Parenthetical Address' appeared in the 'Morning Chronicle' for October 23, 1812. In the same issue was printed a long statement by Dr. Busby, in which, after paying a compliment to Byron's "poetical genius," he insisted that the Committee of Drury Lane had broken faith by not choosing one of the addresses sent in by competitors. (See references to Dr. Busby in 'Poems', vol. i. pp. 481 and 485, 'note' 1.) Dr. Thomas Busby (1755-1838) composed the music for Holcroft's 'Tale of Mystery', the first musical melodrama produced on the English stage (Covent Garden, November 13, 1802). He was for some time assistant editor of the 'Morning Post', and Parliamentary reporter for the 'London Courant'; wrote on musical subjects, taught languages and music, and translated Lucretius into rhymed verse (1813).]

[Footnote 2: 'The Curse of Minerva,' written at Athens, in 1811, was not published as a whole till 1828. But the first fifty-four lines appeared in Canto III. of 'The Corsair' (1814). (See 'The Curse of Minerva:' Introductory note, 'Poems,' 1898, vol. i. p. 453.)]



* * * * *



265.—To Robert Rushton.

Cheltenham, Oct. 18th, 1812.

Robert,—I hope you continue as much as possible to apply yourself to Accounts and Land-Measurement, etc. Whatever change may take place about Newstead, there will be none as to you and Mr. Murray. It is intended to place you in a situation in Rochdale for which your pursuance of the Studies I recommend will best fit you. Let me hear from you; is your health improved since I was last at the Abbey? In the mean time, if any accident occur to me, you are provided for in my will, and if not, you will always find in your Master a sincere Friend. B.



* * * * *



266.—To John Murray.

Oct. 19, 1812.

Dear Sir,—Many thanks, but I must pay the 'damage', and will thank you to tell me the amount for the engraving. I think the 'Rejected Addresses' by far the best thing of the kind since the 'Rolliad', and wish you had published them. Tell the author "I forgive him, were be twenty times our satirist;" and think his imitations not at all inferior to the famous ones of Hawkins Browne. He must be a man of very lively wit, and much less scurrilous than Wits often are: altogether, I very much admire the performance, and wish it all success. The 'Satirist' has taken a new tone, as you will see: we have now, I think, finished with 'C. H.'s' critics. I have in 'hand' a 'Satire' on 'Waltzing', which you must publish anonymously: it is not long, not quite 200 lines, but will make a very small boarded pamphlet. In a few days you shall have it.

Ever yours,

BYRON.

P.S.—The editor of the 'Satirist' almost ought to be thanked for his revocation; it is done handsomely, after five years' warfare.



* * * * *



267.—To John Hanson.

Octr. 22d, 1812.

DEAR SIR,—I enclose you Mr. C[laughton]'s letter, from which you yourself will judge of my own. I insisted on the contract, and said, if I gave up the wines, etc., it would be as a gift. He admits the validity, as you perceive. I told him that I wished to avoid raising difficulties and in all respects to fulfil the bargain.

I am going to Lord Oxford's, Eywood, Presteigne, Hereford. In my way back I will take Farleigh, if you are not returned to London before.

I wish to take a small house for the winter any where not remote from St. James's. Will you arrange this for me?—and think of young Rushton, whom I promised to provide for, and must begin to think of it; he might be a sub-Tythe collector, or a Bailiff to our agent at Rochdale, or many other things. He has had a fair education and was well disposed; at all events, he must no longer remain in idleness.

Let the Mule be sold and the dogs.

Pray let me hear from you when convenient, and

Believe me, ever yours truly,

BYRON.

My best remembrances to all.

I shall draw for fifty this week.

Is anything done about Miss M[assingberd]? You have not mentioned her.



* * * * *



268.—To John Murray.

Oct. 23, 1812.

DEAR SIR,—Thanks, as usual. You go on boldly; but have a care of glutting the public, who have by this time had enough of 'C. H.' 'Waltz' shall be prepared. It is rather above 200 lines, with an introductory letter to the Publisher. I think of publishing, with 'C. H.', the opening lines of the 'Curse of Minerva' as far as the first speech of Pallas,—because some of the readers like that part better than any I have ever written; and as it contains nothing to affect the subject of the subsequent portion, it will find a place as a descriptive fragment.

The plate is broken? between ourselves, it was unlike the picture; and besides, upon the whole, the frontispiece of an author's visage is but a paltry exhibition. At all events, this would have been no recommendation to the book. I am sure Sanders would not have survived the engraving. By the by, the picture may remain with you or him (which you please), till my return. The one of two remaining copies is at your service till I can give you a better; the other must be burned peremptorily. Again, do not forget that I have an account with you, and that this is included. I give you too much TROUBLE to allow you to incur EXPENSE also.

You best know how far this "Address Riot" will affect the future sale of 'C. H.' I like the volume of "rejected A." better and better. The other parody which Perry has received is mine also (I believe). It is Dr. Busby's speech versified. You are removing to Albemarle Street, I find, and I rejoice that we shall be nearer neighbours. I am going to Lord Oxford's, but letters here will be forwarded. When at leisure, all communications from you will be willingly received by the humblest of your scribes. Did Mr. Ward write the review of H. Tooke's Life? [1] It is excellent.

Yours ever,

B.



[Footnote 1: See 'Quarterly Review', vol. vii. p. 313. The article alluded to was written by the Hon. J. W. Ward, afterwards Earl of Dudley.]



* * * * *



269.—To John Hanson.

Eywood, Presteign, Hereford, Octr. 31st, 1812.

DEAR SIR,—The inclosed bill [1] will convince you how anxious I must be for the payment of Claughton's first instalment; though it has been sent in without due notice, I cannot blame Mr. Davies who must feel very anxious to get rid of the business. Press C., and let me have an answer whenever you can to this Place.

Yours ever,

B.

P.S.—I am at Lord Oxford's, Eywood, as above.



[Footnote 1: The bill was Byron's for L1500, and the enclosure ran as follows:

"Lord Byron.

"A Bill for L1500, drawn by Scrope B. Davies, lies due at Sir James Esdaile and Co's., No. 21, Lombard-Street.

"All Drafts intended for the Payment of Bills, to be brought before Half past Three o'Clock.

"Please to call between 3 and Five o'Clock."

The same day Byron writes a second letter to Hanson:

"Do pray press Claughton, as Mr. D.'s business must be settled at all events. I send you his letter, and I am more uncomfortable than I can possibly express myself upon the subject. Pray write."]



* * * * *



270.—To John Hanson.

Presteign, Novr. 8th, 1812.

DEAR SIR,—Not being able (and to-day being Sunday also) to procure a stamp, as the Post town is very remote, I must request this letter to be considered as an Order for paying fifteen hundred pounds to S.B. Davies, Esq., and the same sum to your own account for the Tythe purchase. Mr. D.'s receipt can be indorsed on the bond.

I shall be in London the latter end of the week. I set out from this place on the 12th. As to Mr. C., the Law must decide between us; I shall abide by the Contract. Your answer will not reach me in time, so do not write to me while here.

Pray let Mr. D. be paid and you also—come what may.[1] I always foresaw that C. would shirk; but he did it with his eyes open. What question can arise as to the title? has it never been examined? I never heard of it before, and surely, in all our law suits, that question must have come to issue.

I hope we shall meet in town. I will wait on you the moment I arrive.

My best respects to your family; believe me, Ever yours sincerely,

BYRON.



[Footnote 1: Byron was prepared to make some sacrifices to extricate himself from debt, or go abroad. The following letter to Hanson is dated December 10, 1812:

"DEAR SIR,—I have to request that you will pay the bearer (my Groom) the wages due to him (12 pds. 10s.), and dismiss him immediately, as I have given up my horses, and place the sum to my account.

"Ever yours,

"BYRON."

Four days later, December 14, 1812, he writes again to Hanson:

"DEAR SIR,—I request your attention to the enclosed. See what can be done with Howard, and urge Claughton. If this kind of thing continues, I must quit a country which my debts render uninhabitable, notwithstanding every sacrifice on my part.

"Yours ever,

"B."]



* * * * *



271.—To John Hanson.

Presteign, Novr. 16th, 1812.

DEAR SIR,—The floods having rendered the road impassable, I am detained here, but trust by the latter end of the week to proceed to Cheltenham, where I shall expect a letter from you to tell me if I am wanted in town.

I shall not be in time for the Prince's address; but I wish you to write down for my Parliamentary robes (Mrs. Chaworth had them, at least Mrs. Clarke the mother); though I rather think those were the Coronation and not the House robes. At least enquire.

I hope Mr. D. is paid; and, if Mr. C. demurs, we must bring an action according to Contract.

I trust you are well, and well doing in my behalf and your own.

Ever yours most sincerely,

B.



* * * * *



272.—To John Murray.

Cheltenham, November 22, 1812.

DEAR SIR,—On my return here from Lord Oxford's, I found your obliging note, and will thank you to retain the letters, and any other subsequent ones to the same address, till I arrive in town to claim them, which will probably be in a few days. I have in charge a curious and very long MS. poem, written by Lord Brooke (the friend of Sir Philip Sidney), which I wish to submit to the inspection of Mr. Gifford, with the following queries:—first, whether it has ever been published, and secondly (if not), whether it is worth publication? It is from Lord Oxford's Library, and must have escaped or been overlooked amongst the MSS. of the Harleian Miscellany. The writing is Lord Brooke's, except a different hand towards the close. It is very long, and in the six-line stanza. It is not for me to hazard an opinion upon its merits; but I would take the Liberty, if not too troublesome, to submit it to Mr. Gifford's judgment, which, from his excellent edition of Massinger, I should conceive to be as decisive on the writings of that age as on those of our own.

Now for a less agreeable and important topic.—How came Mr. Mac-Somebody [1], without consulting you or me, to prefix the Address to his volume of "dejected addresses?" Is not this somewhat larcenous? I think the ceremony of leave might have been asked, though I have no objection to the thing itself; and leave the "hundred and eleven" to tire themselves with "base comparisons." I should think the ingenuous public tolerably sick of the subject, and, except the parodies, I have not interfered, nor shall; indeed I did not know that Dr. Busby had published his apologetical letter and postscript [2], or I should have recalled them. But, I confess, I looked upon his conduct in a different light before its appearance. I see some mountebank has taken Alderman Birch's name [3] to vituperate the Doctor; he had much better have pilfered his pastry, which I should imagine the more valuable ingredient—at least for a Puff.—Pray secure me a copy of Woodfall's new 'Junius' [4],

and believe me,

Dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

B.



[Footnote 1: B. McMillan]

[Footnote 2: This probably refers to Busby's apologetic letter in the 'Morning Chronicle' for October 23, 1812.]

[Footnote 3: Alderman Birch was a pastry-cook in Cornhill.]

[Footnote 4: In the Catalogue of Byron's books, sold April 5, 1816, appear two copies of 'Junius':

"Junius's Letters, 2 vol. russia, 1806."

"Junius's Letters, by Woodfall, 3 vol., Large Paper, 1812."]



* * * * *



273.—To William Bankes.

December 26, [1812].

The multitude of your recommendations has already superseded my humble endeavours to be of use to you; and, indeed, most of my principal friends are returned, Leake from Joannina, Canning and Adair from the city of the Faithful, and at Smyrna no letter is necessary, as the consuls are always willing to do every thing for personages of respectability. I have sent you three; one to Gibraltar, which, though of no great necessity, will, perhaps, put you on a more intimate footing with a very pleasant family there. You will very soon find out that a man of any consequence has very little occasion for any letters but to ministers and bankers, and of them we have already plenty, I will be sworn.

It is by no means improbable that I shall go in the spring; and if you will fix any place of rendezvous about August, I will write or join you.—When in Albania, I wish you would inquire after Dervise Tahiri and Vascillie (or Bazil), and make my respects to the viziers, both there and in the Morea. If you mention my name to Suleyman of Thebes, I think it will not hurt you; if I had my dragoman, or wrote Turkish, I could have given you letters of real service; but to the English they are hardly requisite, and the Greeks themselves can be of little advantage. Liston [1] you know already, and I do not, as he was not then minister. Mind you visit Ephesus and the Troad, and let me hear from you when you please. I believe G. Forresti is now at Yanina; but if not, whoever is there will be too happy to assist you. Be particular about firmauns; never allow yourself to be bullied, for you are better protected in Turkey than any where; trust not the Greeks; and take some knicknackeries for presents—watches, pistols, etc., etc., to the Beys and Pachas. If you find one Demetrius, at Athens or elsewhere, I can recommend him as a good dragoman. I hope to join you, however; but you will find swarms of English now in the Levant.

Believe me, etc.



[Footnote 1: Robert Liston, afterwards Sir Robert Liston (1742-1836), succeeded Adair as Ambassador at Constantinople in 1811.]



* * * * *



274.—To John Murray.

Eywood, Presteign, January 8, 1813.

Dear Sir,—You have been imposed upon by a letter forged in my name to obtain the picture left in your possession. This I know by the confession of the culprit [1] and as she is a woman (and of rank), with whom I have unfortunately been too much connected, you will for the present say very little about it; but if you have the letter retain it—write to me the particulars. You will also be more cautious in future, and not allow anything of mine to pass from your hands without my Seal as well as Signature.

I have not been in town, nor have written to you since I left it. So I presume the forgery was a skilful performance.—I shall endeavour to get back the picture by fair means, if possible.

Yours ever,

BYRON.

P.S.—Keep the letter if you have it. I did not receive your parcel, and it is now too late to send it on, as I shall be in town on the 17th. The delinquent is one of the first families in this kingdom; but, as Dogberry says, this is "flat burglary." [2]

Favour me with an answer. I hear I am scolded in the 'Quarterly'; but you and it are already forgiven. I suppose that made you bashful about sending it.



[Footnote 1: The culprit was Lady Caroline Lamb, who imitated Byron's handwriting with remarkable skill.]

[Footnote 2: 'Much Ado about Nothing', act iv. sc. 2.]



* * * * *



275.—To Francis Hodgson.

February 3, 1813.

My Dear Hodgson,—I will join you in any bond for the money you require, be it that or a larger sum. With regard to security, as Newstead is in a sort of abeyance between sale and purchase, and my Lancashire property very unsettled, I do not know how far I can give more than personal security, but what I can I will. At any rate you can try, and as the sum is not very considerable, the chances are favourable. I hear nothing of my own concerns, but expect a letter daily. Let me hear from you where you are and will be this month. I am a great admirer of the 'R. A.' ['Rejected Addresses'], though I have had so great a share in the cause of their publication, and I like the 'C. H.' ['Childe Harold'] imitation one of the best. [1] Lady Oxford has heard me talk much of you as a relative of the Cokes, etc., and desires me to say she would be happy to have the pleasure of your acquaintance. You must come and see me at K[insham]. I am sure you would like all here if you knew them.

The "Agnus" is furious. You can have no idea of the horrible and absurd things she has said and done [2] since (really from the best motives) I withdrew my homage. "Great pleasure" is, certes, my object, but "why brief, Mr. Wild?" [3] I cannot answer for the future, but the past is pretty secure; and in it I can number the last two months as worthy of the gods in 'Lucretius'. I cannot review in the "Monthly;" in fact I can just now do nothing, at least with a pen; and I really think the days of Authorship are over with me altogether. I hear and rejoice in Eland's and Merivale's intentions [4].

Murray has grown great, and has got him new premises in the fashionable part of the town [5].

We live here so shut out of the monde that I have nothing of general import to communicate, and fill this up with a "happy new year," and drink to you and Drury.

Ever yours, dear H., B.

I have no intention of continuing "Childe Harold." There are a few additions in the "body of the book" of description, which will merely add to the number of pages in the next edition. I have taken Kinsham Court. The business of last summer I broke off [6], and now the amusement of the gentle fair is writing letters literally threatening my life, and much in the style of "Miss Mathews" in "Amelia," or "Lucy" in the "Beggar's Opera." Such is the reward of restoring a woman to her family, who are treating her with the greatest kindness, and with whom I am on good terms. I am still in palatia Circes, and, being no Ulysses, cannot tell into what animal I may be converted; as you are aware of the turn of both parties, your conjectures will be very correct, I daresay, and, seriously, I am very much attached. She has had her share of the denunciations of the brilliant Phryne, and regards them as much as I do. I hope you will visit me at K. which will not be ready before spring, and I am very sure you would like my neighbours if you knew them. If you come down now to Kington [7], pray come and see me.



[Footnote 1:

"Byron often talks of the authors of the 'Rejected Addresses', and always in terms of unqualified praise. He says that the imitations, unlike all other imitations, are full of genius. 'Parodies,' he said, 'always give a bad impression of the original, but in the 'Rejected Addresses' the reverse was the fact;' and he quoted the second and third stanzas, in imitation of himself, as admirable, and just what he could have wished to write on a similar subject"

(Lady Blessington's 'Conversations', p. 134).]

[Footnote 2:

"The Bessboroughs," writes Lady H. Leveson Gower to Lady G. Morpeth, September 12, 1812 ('Letters of Harriet, Countess Granville', vol. i. pp. 40, 41), "have been unpacked about a couple of hours. My aunt looks stout and well, but poor Caroline most terribly the contrary. She is worn to the bone, as pale as death and her eyes starting out of her head. She seems indeed in a sad way, alternately in tearing spirits and in tears. I hate her character, her feelings, and herself when I am away from her, but she interests me when I am with her, and to see her poor careworn face is dismal, in spite of reason and speculation upon her extraordinary conduct. She appears to me in a state very (little) short of insanity, and my aunt describes it as at times having been decidedly so."]

[Footnote 3: The context and allusion seem to require another word than "brief;" but the sentence is written as printed. In Fielding's 'Life of Mr. Jonathan Wild' (Bk. III. chap. viii.) and in

"a dialogue matrimonial, which passed between Jonathan Wild, Esquire, and Laetitia his wife" ('nee' Laetitia Snap), "Laetitia asks, 'But pray, Mr. Wild, why b—ch? Why did you suffer such a word to escape you?'"]

[Footnote 4: The republication of the 'Anthology']

[Footnote 5: Murray's removal from 32, Fleet Street, to 50, Albemaile Street.]

[Footnote 6: With Lady Caroline Lamb.]

[Footnote 7: Near Lower Moor, the residence of Hodgson's relatives, the Cokes.]



* * * * *



276.—To John Hanson.

3d Feb'y, 1813.

Dear Sir,—Will you forward the inclosed immediately to Corbet, whose address I do not exactly remember? It is of consequence, relative to a foolish woman [1] I never saw, who fancies I want to marry her.

Yours ever, B.

P.S.—I wish you would see Corbet and talk to him about it, for she plagues my soul out with her damned letters.



[Footnote 1: The lady in question seems to have been Lady Falkland (see 'Letters', vol. 1, p. 216, 'note' 1 [Footnote 1 of Letter 117], and the letter dated March 5, 1813 [Letter 281 in this volume.])]



* * * * *



277.—To John Murray.

February 20, 1813.

Dear Sir,—In "Horace in London" [1] I perceive some stanzas on Lord Elgin in which (waving the kind compliment to myself [2]) I heartily concur. I wish I had the pleasure of Mr. Smith's acquaintance, as I could communicate the curious anecdote you read in Mr. T.'s letter. If he would like it, he can have the substance for his second Edition; if not, I shall add it to our next, though I think we already have enough of Lord Elgin.

What I have read of this work seems admirably done. My praise, however, is not much worth the Author's having; but you may thank him in my name for his. The idea is new—we have excellent imitations of the Satires, etc. by Pope; but I remember but one imitative Ode in his works, and none any where else. I can hardly suppose that they have lost any fame by the fate of the Farce [3]; but even should this be the case, the present publication will again place them on their pinnacle.

Yours truly,

B.



[Footnote 1: 'Horace in London; consisting of Imitations of the First Two Books of the Odes of Horace', by James and Horace Smith (1813), was a collection of imitations, the best of which are by James Smith, republished from Hill's 'Monthly Mirror', where they originally appeared.]

[Footnote 2: In Book 1. ode xv. of 'Horace in London', entitled "The Parthenon," Minerva thus speaks:

"All who behold my mutilated pile Shall brand its ravager with classic rage, And soon a titled bard from Britain's Isle, Thy country's praise and suffrage shall engage, And fire with Athens' wrongs an angry age!"

[Footnote 3: Horace Smith's unsuccessful comedy, 'First Impressions; or, Trade in the West', was performed at Drury Lane. The prologue, spoken by Powell, beseeches a judgment from the audience:

"Such as mild Justice might herself dispense, To Inexperience and a First Offence."]



* * * * *



278.—To Robert Rushton.

4, Bennet Street, St. James's, Feb. 24th, 1813.

I feel rather surprised to have heard nothing from you or your father in answer to Fletcher's last letter. I wish to know whether you intend taking a share in a farm with your brother, or prefer to wait for some other situation in Lancashire;—the first will be the best, because, at your time of life, it is highly improper to remain idle. If this marriage which is spoken of for you is at all advantageous, I can have no objection; but I should suppose, after being in my service from your infancy, you will at least let me know the name of your intended, and her expectations. If at all respectable, nothing can be better for your settlement in life, and a proper provision will be made for you; at all events let me hear something on the subject, for, as I have some intention of leaving England in the Summer, I wish to make my arrangements with regard to yourself before that period. As you and Mr. Murray have not received any money for some time, if you will draw on me for fifty pounds (payable at Messrs. Hoare's, Bankers, Fleet Street), and tell Mr. J[oseph] Murray to draw for the same sum on his own account, both will be paid by me.

Etc., etc.,

B.



* * * * *



279.—To John Hanson.

F'y. 27th, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I have called several times, and you may suppose am very anxious to hear something from or of Mr. Claughton.

It is my determination, on account of a malady to which I am subject, and for other weighty reasons, to go abroad again almost immediately. To this you will object; but, as my intention cannot be altered, I have only to request that you will assist me as far as in your power to make the necessary arrangements.

I have every confidence in you, and will leave the fullest powers to act in my absence. If this man still hesitates, I must sell my part of Rochdale for what it will bring, even at a loss, and fight him out about Newstead; without this, I have no funds to go on with, and I do not wish to incur further debts if possible.

Pray favour me with a short reply to this, and say when I can see you. Excuse me to Mrs. H. for my non-appearance last night; I was detained in the H. of L. till too late to dress for her party. Compliments to all.

Ever yours,

BN.



* * * * *



280.—To John Hanson.

March 1st, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I am sorry that I could not call today but will tomorrow. Your objections I anticipated and can only repeat that I cannot act otherwise; so pray hasten some arrangement—for with, or without, I must go.

A person told me yesterday there was one who would give within 10000 of C.'s price and take the title as it was. C. is a fool or is shuffling.

Think of what I said about Rochdale, for I will sell it for what I can get, and will not stay three months longer in this country. I again repeat I will leave all with full powers to you. I commend your objection which is a proof of an honourable mind—which however I did not need to convince me of your character. If you have any news send a few lines.

Ever yours,

BN.



* * * * *



281.—To——Corbet.

Mh. 5th, 1813.

Dear Sir,—Lady F[alkland?] has returned by Mr. Hanson the only two letters I ever wrote her, both some time ago, and neither containing the least allusion which could make any person suppose that I had any intention further than regards the children of her husband. My servant returned the packet and letter of yesterday at the moment of receiving them; by her letter to Mr. H. it should seem they have not been redelivered. I am sorry for this, but it is not my fault, and they ought never to have been sent. After her Ladyship's mistakes, so often repeated, you will not blame me for declining all further interference in her affairs, and I rely much upon your word in contradicting her foolish assertions, and most absurd imaginations. She now says that "I need not leave the country on her account." How the devil she knew that I was about to leave it I cannot guess; but, however, for the first time she has dreamed right. But her being the cause is still more ludicrous than the rest. First, she would have it that I returned here for love of a woman I never saw, and now that I am going, for the same whom I have never seen, and certainly never wished, nor wish, to see! The maddest consistency I ever heard of. I trust that she has regained her senses, as she tells Mr. H. she will not scribble any more, which will also save you from the troublesome correspondence of

Your obliged and obedient servant,

BYRON.



* * * * *



282.—To John Hanson.

March 6th, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I must be ready in April at whatever risk,—at whatever loss. You will therefore advertize Rochdale; if you decline this, I will sell it for what it will bring, even though but a few thousand pounds.

With regard to Claughton, I shall only say that, if he knew the ruin,—the misery, he occasions by his delay, he would be sorry for his conduct, and I only hope that he and I may not meet, or I shall say something he will not like to hear. I have called often. I shall call today at three or between three and four; again and again, I can only beg of you to forward my plans, for here no power on earth shall make me remain six weeks longer.

Ever yours,

B.



* * * * *



283.—To Charles Hanson.

Mh. 24th, 1813.

My Dear Charles,—This is very evasive and dissatisfactory. What is to be done I cannot tell, but your father had better see his letter and this of mine. A long litigation neither suits my inclination nor circumstances; it were better to take back the estate, and raise it to what it will bear, which must be at least double, to dismantle the house and sell the materials, and sell Rochdale. Something I must determine on and that quickly. I want to go abroad immediately; it is utterly impossible for me to remain here; every thing I have done to extricate myself has been useless. Your father said "sell;" I have sold, and see what has become of it! If I go to Law with this fellow, after five years litigation at the present depreciation of money, the price will not be worth the property; besides how much of it will be spent in the contest! and how am I to live in the interim? Every day land rises and money falls. I shall tell Mr. Cn. he is a scoundrel, and have done with him, and I only hope he will have spirit enough to resent the appellation, and defend his own rascally conduct. In the interim of his delay in his journey, I shall leave town; on Sunday I shall set out for Herefordshire, from whence, when wanted, I will return.

Pray tell your father to get the money on Rochdale, or I must sell it directly. I must be ready by the last week in May, and am consequently pressed for time.

I go first to Cagliari in Sardinia, and on to the Levant.

Believe me, dear Charles,

Yours truly,

B.



* * * * *



284.—To Samuel Rogers. [1]

March 25, 1813.

I enclose you a draft for the usurious interest due to Lord B[oringdon]'s protege;—I also could wish you would state thus much for me to his Lordship. Though the transaction speaks plainly in itself for the borrower's folly and the lender's usury, it never was my intention to quash the demand, as I legally might, nor to withhold payment of principal, or, perhaps, even unlawful interest. You know what my situation has been, and what it is. I have parted with an estate (which has been in my family for nearly three hundred years, and was never disgraced by being in possession of a lawyer, a churchman, or a woman, during that period,) to liquidate this and similar demands; and the payment of the purchase is still withheld, and may be, perhaps, for years. If, therefore, I am under the necessity of making those persons wait for their money, (which, considering the terms, they can afford to suffer,) it is my misfortune.

When I arrived at majority in 1809,1 offered my own security on legal interest, and it was refused. Now, I will not accede to this. This man I may have seen, but I have no recollection of the names of any parties but the agents and the securities. The moment I can, it is assuredly my intention to pay my debts. This person's case may be a hard one; but, under all circumstances, what is mine? I could not foresee that the purchaser of my estate was to demur in paying for it.

I am glad it happens to be in my power so far to accommodate my Israelite, and only wish I could do as much for the rest of the Twelve Tribes.

Ever yours, dear R.,

BN.



[Footnote 1: The following was Rogers's reply:—

"Friday Morning.

"My Dearest Byron,—I have just received your note, but I will not execute your Commission; and, moreover, I will tell Lord Boringdon that I refused to do it. I know your situation; and I should never sleep again, if by any interference of mine, for by so harsh a word I must call it, you should be led by your generosity, your pride, or any other noble motive, to do more than you are called upon to do.

"I mentioned the thing to Lord Holland last night, and he entirely agreed with me, that you are not called upon to do it. The Principal and the legal interest are all that these extortioners are entitled to; and, you must forgive me, but I will not do as you require. I shall keep the draft till I see you.

"Yours ever and ever,

"SAML. ROGERS."]



* * * * *



285.—To the Hon. Augusta Leigh.

4, Bennet Street, St. James's, March 26th, 1813.

My Dearest Augusta,—I did not answer your letter, because I could not answer as I wished, but expected that every week would bring me some tidings that might enable me to reply better than by apologies. But Claughton has not, will not, and, I think, cannot pay his money, and though, luckily, it was stipulated that he should never have possession till the whole was paid, the estate is still on my hands, and your brother consequently not less embarrassed than ever. This is the truth, and is all the excuse I can offer for inability, but not unwillingness, to serve you.

I am going abroad again in June, but should wish to see you before my departure. You have perhaps heard that I have been fooling away my time with different "regnantes;" but what better can be expected from me? I have but one relative, and her I never see. I have no connections to domesticate with, and for marriage I have neither the talent nor the inclination. I cannot fortune-hunt, nor afford to marry without a fortune. My parliamentary schemes are not much to my taste—I spoke twice last Session, [1] and was told it was well enough; but I hate the thing altogether, and have no intention to "strut another hour" on that stage. I am thus wasting the best part of life, daily repenting and never amending.

On Sunday, I set off for a fortnight for Eywood, near Presteign, in Herefordshire—with the Oxfords. I see you put on a demure look at the name, which is very becoming and matronly in you; but you won't be sorry to hear that I am quite out of a more serious scrape with another singular personage which threatened me last year, and trouble enough I had to steer clear of it I assure you. I hope all my nieces are well, and increasing in growth and number; but I wish you were not always buried in that bleak common near Newmarket.

I am very well in health, but not happy, nor even comfortable; but I will not bore you with complaints. I am a fool, and deserve all the ills I have met, or may meet with, but nevertheless very sensibly, dearest Augusta,

Your most affectionate brother, BYRON.



[Footnote 1: What is generally supposed to have been Byron's second speech (see Appendix II. (2)) was made, April 21, 1813, on Lord Donoughmore's motion for a Committee on Roman Catholic claims.

The following impressions of his short parliamentary career are recorded by Byron himself:

"I have never heard any one who fulfilled my ideal of an orator. Grattan would have been near it, but for his harlequin delivery. Pitt I never heard. Fox but once, and then he struck me as a debater, which to me seems as different from an orator as an improvisatore, or a versifier, from a poet. Grey is great, but it is not oratory. Canning is sometimes very like one. Windham I did not admire, though all the world did; it seemed sad sophistry. Whitbread was the Demosthenes of bad taste and vulgar vehemence, but strong, and English. Holland is impressive from sense and sincerity. Lord Lansdowne good, but still a debater only. Grenville I like vastly, if he would prune his speeches down to an hour's delivery. Burdett is sweet and silvery as Belial himself, and I think the greatest favourite in Pandemonium; at least I always heard the country gentlemen and the ministerial devilry praise his speeches up stairs, and run down from Bellamy's when he was upon his legs. I heard Bob Milnes make his second speech; it made no impression. I like Ward—studied, but keen, and sometimes eloquent. Peel, my school and form fellow (we sat within two of each other), strange to say, I have never heard, though I often wished to do so; but, from what I remember of him at Harrow, he is, or should be, among the best of them. Now I do not admire Mr. Wilberforce's speaking; it is nothing but a flow of words—'words, words, alone.'

"I doubt greatly if the English have any eloquence, properly so called; and am inclined to think that the Irish had a great deal, and that the French will have, and have had in Mirabeau. Lord Chatham and Burke are the nearest approaches to orators in England. I don't know what Erskine may have been at the bar, but in the House, I wish him at the bar once more. Lauderdale is shrill, and Scotch, and acute. Of Brougham I shall say nothing, as I have a personal feeling of dislike to the man.

"But amongst all these, good, bad, and indifferent, I never heard the speech which was not too long for the auditors, and not very intelligible, except here and there. The whole thing is a grand deception, and as tedious and tiresome as maybe to those who must be often present. I heard Sheridan only once, and that briefly, but I liked his voice, his manner, and his wit: and he is the only one of them I ever wished to hear at greater length.

"The impression of Parliament upon me was, that its members are not formidable as speakers, but very much so as an audience; because in so numerous a body there may be little eloquence, (after all, there were but two thorough orators in all antiquity, and I suspect still fewer in modern times,) but there must be a leaven of thought and good sense sufficient to make them know what is right, though they can't express it nobly.

"Horne Tooke and Roscoe both are said to have declared that they left Parliament with a higher opinion of its aggregate integrity and abilities than that with which they entered it. The general amount of both in most Parliaments is probably about the same, as also the number of speakers and their talent. I except orators, of course, because they are things of ages, and not of septennial or triennial reunions. Neither House ever struck me with more awe or respect than the same number of Turks in a divan, or of Methodists in a barn, would have done. Whatever diffidence or nervousness I felt (and I felt both, in a great degree) arose from the number rather than the quality of the assemblage, and the thought rather of the public without than the persons within,—knowing (as all know) that Cicero himself, and probably the Messiah, could never have altered the vote of a single lord of the bedchamber, or bishop. I thought our House dull, but the other animating enough upon great days.

"I have heard that when Grattan made his first speech in the English Commons, it was for some minutes doubtful whether to laugh at or cheer him. The debut of his predecessor, Flood, had been a complete failure, under nearly similar circumstances. But when the ministerial part of our senators had watched Pitt (their thermometer) for the cue, and saw him nod repeatedly his stately nod of approbation, they took the hint from their huntsman, and broke out into the most rapturous cheers. Grattan's speech, indeed, deserved them; it was a chef-d'oeuvre. I did not hear that speech of his (being then at Harrow), but heard most of his others on the same question—also that on the war of 1815. I differed from his opinions on the latter question, but coincided in the general admiration of his eloquence.

"When I met old Courtenay, the orator, at Rogers's the poet's, in 1811-12, I was much taken with the portly remains of his fine figure, and the still acute quickness of his conversation. It was he who silenced Flood in the English House by a crushing reply to a hasty debut of the rival of Grattan in Ireland. I asked Courtenay (for I like to trace motives) if he had not some personal provocation; for the acrimony of his answer seemed to me, as I read it, to involve it. Courtenay said 'he had; that, when in Ireland (being an Irishman), at the bar of the Irish House of Commons, Flood had made a personal and unfair attack upon himself, who, not being a member of that House, could not defend himself, and that some years afterwards, the opportunity of retort offering in the English Parliament, he could not resist it.' He certainly repaid Flood with interest, for Flood never made any figure, and only a speech or two afterwards, in the English House of Commons. I must except, however, his speech on Reform in 1790, which Fox called 'the best he ever heard upon that subject.'"]



* * * * *



286.—To John Murray.

March 29th, 1813.

Dear Sir,—Westall has, I believe, agreed to illustrate your book [1], and I fancy one of the engravings will be from the pretty little girl [2] you saw the other day, though without her name, and merely as a model for some sketch connected with the subject. I would also have the portrait (which you saw to-day) of the friend who is mentioned in the text at the close of Canto 1st, and in the notes,—which are subjects sufficient to authorise that addition.

Believe me, yours truly, B'N.



[Footnote 1: An edition of the first two cantos of 'Childe Harold', to be illustrated by Richard Westall (1765-1836), who painted Byron's portrait in 1813-14.]

[Footnote 2: Lady Charlotte Harley, daughter of Lord Oxford, to whom, under the name of Ianthe, the introductory lines to 'Childe Harold' were afterwards addressed. Lady Charlotte married, in 1820, Brigadier-General Bacon.]



* * * * *



287.—To John Hanson.

Presteigne, April 15th, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I wrote to you requesting an answer last week, and again apprising you of my determination of leaving England early in May, and proceeding no further with Claughton.

Now, having arrived, I shall write to that person immediately to give up the whole business. I am sick of the delays attending it, and can wait no longer, and I have had too much of law already at Rochdale to place Newstead in the same predicament.

I shall only be able to see you for a few days in town, as I shall sail before the 20th of May.

Believe me, yours ever, B.

P.S.—My best compliments to Mrs. H. and the family.



* * * * *



288.—To John Hanson.

Presteigne, April 17th, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I shall follow your advice and say nothing to our shuffling purchaser, but leave him to you, and the fullest powers of Attorney, which I hope you will have ready on my arrival in town early next week. I wish, if possible, the arrangement with Hoare to be made immediately, as I must set off forthwith. I mean to remain incog. in London for the short time previous to my embarkation.

I have not written to Claughton, nor shall, of course, after your counsel on the subject. I wish you would turn in your mind the expediency of selling Rochdale. I shall never make any thing of it, as it is.

I beg you will provide (as before my last voyage) the fullest powers to act in my absence, and bring my cursed concerns into some kind of order. You must at least allow that I have acted according to your advice about Newstead, and I shall take no step without your being previously consulted.

I hope I shall find you and Mrs. H., etc., well in London, and that you have heard something from this dilatory gentleman.

Believe me, ever yours truly,

B.



* * * * *



289.—To John Murray.

April 21, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I shall be in town by Sunday next, and will call and have some conversation on the subject of Westall's proposed designs. I am to sit to him for a picture at the request of a friend of mine [1]; and as Sanders's is not a good one, you will probably prefer the other. I wish you to have Sanders's taken down and sent to my lodgings immediately—before my arrival. I hear that a certain malicious publication on Waltzing [2] is attributed to me. This report, I suppose, you will take care to contradict, as the Author, I am sure, will not like that I should wear his cap and bells. Mr. Hobhouse's quarto will be out immediately; pray send to the author for an early copy which I wish to take abroad with me.

Dear Sir, I am, yours very truly, B.

P.S.—I see the 'Examiner' [3] threatens some observations upon you next week. What can you have done to share the wrath which has heretofore been principally expended upon the Prince? I presume all your Scribleri will be drawn up in battle array in defence of the modern Tonson—Mr. Bucke [4], for instance. Send in my account to Bennet Street, as I wish to settle it before sailing.



[Footnote 1: This picture, exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1815, is now in the possession of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts.]

[Footnote 2: Byron's 'Waltz' was published anonymously in the spring of 1813, not, apparently, by Murray, but by Sherwood, Neely, and Jones, Paternoster Row.]

[Footnote 3: In the 'Examiner' for April, 1813, occurs the paragraph: "A word or two on Mr. Murray's (the 'splendid bookseller') judgment in the Fine Arts—next week, 'if room'."]

[Footnote 4: Charles Bucke (1781-1846), a voluminous writer of verse, plays, and miscellaneous subjects, published, in 1813, his 'Philosophy of Nature; or, the Influence of Scenery on the Mind and Heart'. He supported himself by his pen, and that indifferently. Byron seems to suggest that he was a dependent of Murray's. In 1817 he sent to the Committee of Management at Drury Lane his tragedy, 'The Italians; or, the Fatal Accusation', and it was accepted. In February, 1819, he withdrew the play, in consequence of a quarrel with Edmund Kean, and published it with extracts from the correspondence and a Preface, which sent it through numerous editions. The play itself was, after being withdrawn, played at Drury Lane, April 3, 1819. Bucke and his Preface were answered in 'The Assailant Assailed', and in 'A Defence of Edmund Kean, Esq'. (both in 1819), and the opinion of the town condemned both him and his tragedy.]



* * * * *



CHAPTER VII.

MAY, 1813-DECEMBER, 1813.

THE 'GIAOUR' AND 'BRIDE OF ABYDOS'.



* * * * *



290.—To John Murray.

May 13, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I send a corrected, and, I hope, amended copy of the lines for the "fragment" already sent this evening. [1] Let the enclosed be the copy that is sent to the Devil (the printers) and burn the other.

Yours, etc., B'N.



[Footnote 1: 'The Giaour', which was now in the press, was expanded, either in the course of printing, or in the successive editions, from 400 lines to 1400. It was published in May, 1813.]



* * * * *



291.—To Thomas Moore.

May 19, 1813.

Oh you, who in all names can tickle the town, Anacreon, Tom Little, Tom Moore, or Tom Brown, [1]— For hang me if I know of which you may most brag, Your Quarto two-pounds, or your Twopenny Post Bag;

* * * * *

But now to my letter—to yours 'tis an answer— To-morrow be with me, as soon as you can, sir, All ready and dress'd for proceeding to spunge on (According to compact) the wit in the dungeon [2]— Pray Phoebus at length our political malice May not get us lodgings within the same palace! I suppose that to-night you're engaged with some codgers, And for Sotheby's [3] Blues have deserted Sam Rogers; And I, though with cold I have nearly my death got, Must put on my breeches, and wait on the Heathcote. But to-morrow at four, we will both play the Scurra, And you'll be Catullus, the Regent, Mamurra. [4]

Dear M.,—having got thus far, I am interrupted by——. 10 o'clock.

Half-past 11.——is gone. I must dress for Lady Heathcote's.—Addio.



[Footnote 1: Moore's 'Intercepted Letters, or the Twopenny Post-bag. By Thomas Brown, the Younger', was published in 1813.]

[Footnote 2: The "wit in the dungeon" was James Henry Leigh Hunt (1784-1859), who was educated at Christ's Hospital, and began his literary life with "a collection of poems, written between the ages of twelve and sixteen," and published in 1801 as 'Juvenilia'. In 1808 he and his brother John started a weekly newspaper called the 'Examiner', which advocated liberal principles with remarkable independence. On February 24, 1811, Hunt published an article in defence of Peter Finnerty, convicted for a libel on Castlereagh, and exhorting public writers to be bold in the cause of individual liberty. The same number contained an article on the savagery of military floggings, for which he was prosecuted, defended by Brougham, and acquitted. His acquittal drew from Shelley a letter of congratulation, addressed to Hunt as "one of the most fearless enlighteners of the public mind" (Dowden's 'Life of Shelley', vol. i. p. 113).

In March, 1812, the 'Morning Post' printed a poem, speaking of the Prince Regent as the "Maecenas of the Age," the "Exciter of Desire," the "Glory of the People," an "Adonis of Loveliness," etc. The 'Examiner' for March 12, 1812, thus translated this adulation into "the language of truth:"

"What person, unacquainted with the true state of the case, would imagine, in reading these astounding eulogies, that this 'Glory of the People' was the subject of millions of shrugs and reproaches!... that this 'Exciter of Desire' (bravo! Messieurs of the 'Post'!), this 'Adonis in Loveliness,' was a corpulent man of fifty!—in short, this 'delightful, blissful, wise, pleasureable, honourable, virtuous, true', and 'immortal' prince was a violator of his word, a libertine over head and ears in disgrace, a despiser of domestic ties, the companion of gamblers and demireps, a man who has just closed half a century without one single claim on the gratitude of his country or the respect of posterity."

Crabb Robinson, who met Leigh Hunt, four days later, at Charles Lamb's, says ('Diary', vol. i. p. 376),

"Leigh Hunt is an enthusiast, very well intentioned, and, I believe, prepared for the worst. He said, pleasantly enough, 'No one can accuse me of not writing a libel. Everything is a libel, as the law is now declared, and our security lies only in their shame.'"

For this libel John and Leigh Hunt were convicted in the Court of King's Bench on December 9, 1812. In the following February they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine of L500 a-piece. John was imprisoned in Coldbath-fields, Leigh in the Surrey County Gaol. They were released on February 2 or 3, 1815.

Shelley, on reading the sentence, proposed a subscription for

"the brave and enlightened man... to whom the public owes a debt as the champion of their liberties and virtues"

(Dowden, 'Life of Shelley', vol. i. p. 325). Keats wrote a sonnet to Hunt on the day he left his prison, beginning:

"What though for showing truth to flatter'd state, Kind Hunt was shut in prison."

A political alliance was thus cemented, which, for the time, was disastrous to the literary prospects of Shelley and Keats. To Hunt Shelley dedicated the 'Cenci', and Keats his first volume of 'Poems' (1817). He is the "gentlest of the wise" in Shelley's 'Adonais'; and, in a suppressed stanza of the same poem, the poet speaks of Hunt's "sweet and earnest looks," "soft smiles," and "dark and night-like eyes." The words inscribed on Shelley's tomb—"Cor Cordium"—were Hunt's choice. In his various papers Hunt zealously championed his friends. In the 'Examiner' for September to October, 1819, he defended Shelley's personal character; in the same paper for June to July, 1817, he praised Keats's first volume of 'Poems'; he reviewed "Lamia" in the 'Indicator' for August 2-9, 1820, and "La Belle Dame sans Merci" in that for May 10, 1820. In his 'Foliage' (1818) are three sonnets addressed to Keats.

Shelley believed in Hunt to the end. It was mainly through him that Hunt came to Pisa in June, 1822, to join with Byron in 'The Liberal'. But he doubted whether the alliance between the "wren and the eagle" could continue ('Life of Shelley', vol. ii. p. 519). Keats, on the other hand, lost his faith in Hunt. In a letter to Haydon (May, 1817), speaking of Hunt, he says,

"There is no greater Sin after the seven deadly than to flatter oneself into an idea of being a great Poet."

Again (March, 1818) he writes,

"It is a great Pity that People should, by associating themselves with the finest things, spoil them. Hunt has damned Hampstead, and masks, and sonnets, and Italian tales."

He writes still more severely (December, 1818-January, 1819),

"If I were to follow my own inclinations, I should never meet any one of that set again, not even Hunt, who is certainly a pleasant fellow in the main when you are with him; but in reality he is vain, egotistical, and disgusting in matters of taste and morals. Hunt does one harm by making fine things petty, and beautiful things hateful. Through him I am indifferent to Mozart. I care not for white Busts—and many a glorious thing when associated with him becomes a nothing."

Haydon considered that Hunt was the "great unhinger" of Keats's best dispositions ('Works of Keats', ed. H.B. Forman, vol. iv. p. 359); and Severn attributes Keats's temporary "mawkishness" to Hunt's society ('ibid'., p. 376).

Nathaniel Hawthorne ('Our Old Home', p. 229, ed. 1884) says of Hunt, and means it as high praise, that

"there was not an English trait in him from head to foot—morally, intellectually, or physically. Beef, ale or stout, brandy or port-wine, entered not at all into his composition."

He was, in fact, a man of weak fibre, who allowed himself to sponge upon his friends, such as Talfourd, Haydon, and Shelley. Though Dickens denied ('All the Year Round', Dec. 24, 1859) that "Harold Skimpole" was intended for Hunt, the picture was recognized as a portrait. On the other hand, Hunt was a man of kindly and genial disposition.

"He loves everything," says Crabb Robinson ('Diary', vol. ii. p. 192), "he catches the sunny side of everything, and, excepting that he has a few polemical antipathies, finds everything beautiful."

In his essays, the best of which appeared in the 'Indicator' (1819-21), he communicates some of his own sense of enjoyment to those of his readers who are content to take him as he is. His circle is limited; but in it his observation is minute and suggestive. The Vale of Health is to him, in a degree proportioned to their respective powers, what the Temple was to Lamb. His style is neat, pretty, and would be affected if it were not the man himself. As a literary journalist, a dramatic critic, and an essayist, he has a place in literature. His poetry is less successful; his affectations, innate vulgarity, and habit of pawing his subjects repel even those who are attracted by its sweetness. Yet his 'Story of Rimini' (1816), which he dedicated to Byron, was admired in its day. Byron, though he condemned its affected style, thought the poem a "devilish good one." Moore held the same opinion; and Jeffrey, writing to him May 28, 1816 ('Memoirs, etc., of Thomas Moon,' vol. ii. p. 100), says,

"I certainly shall not be ill-natured to 'Rimini'. It is very sweet and very lively in many places, and is altogether piquant, as being by far the best imitation of Chaucer and some of his Italian contemporaries that modern times have produced."

No two men could be more unlike than Byron and Hunt, or have less in common. Yet, with a singular capacity for self-delusion, Hunt told his wife that the texture of Byron's mind resembled his to a thread ('Correspondence of L. Hunt', vol. i. p. 88). The friendship began in political sympathy; but two years later (see Byron's letter to Moore, June 1, 1818) it had, on one side at least, cooled. In June, 1822, Hunt came to Pisa to launch The Liberal, with the aid of Shelley and Byron. 'The Liberal: Verse and Prose from the South', started in 1822, lived through four numbers, and died in July, 1823. During that time Byron expressed to Lady Blessington ('Conversations', p. 77)

"a very good opinion of the talents and principle of Mr. Hunt, though, as he said, 'our tastes are so opposite that we are totally unsuited to each other ... in short, we are more formed to be friends at a distance, than near.'"

For the best part of two years Hunt was Byron's guest: he repaid his hospitality by publishing his 'Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries' (1828). Though Lady Blessington said the book "gave, in the main, a fair account" of Byron (Crabb Robinson's 'Diary', vol. iii. p. 13), its publication was a breach of honour. As such it was justly attacked by Moore in "The 'Living Dog' and the 'Dead Lion'":

"Next week will be published (as 'Lives' are the rage) The whole Reminiscences, wondrous and strange, Of a small puppy-dog, that lived once in the cage Of the late noble Lion at Exeter 'Change.

"Though the dog is a dog of the kind they call 'sad,' 'Tis a puppy that much to good breeding pretends; And few dogs have such opportunities had Of knowing how Lions behave—among friends.

"How that animal eats, how he snores, how he drinks, Is all noted down by this Boswell so small; And 'tis plain, from each sentence, the puppy-dog thinks That the Lion was no such great things after all.

"Though he roared pretty well—this the puppy allows— It was all, he says, borrowed—all second-hand roar; And he vastly prefers his own little bow-wows To the loftiest war-note the Lion could pour.

"'Tis, indeed, as good fun as a 'Cynic' could ask, To see how this cockney-bred setter of rabbits Takes gravely the Lord of the Forest to task, And judges of Lions by puppy-dog habits.

"Nay, fed as he was (and this makes it a dark case) With sops every day from the Lion's own pan, He lifts up his leg at the noble beast's carcass, And—does all a dog, so diminutive, can.

"However, the book's a good book, being rich in Examples and warnings to lions high-bred, How they suffer small mongrelly curs in their kitchen, Who'll feed on them living, and foul them when dead.

"Exeter 'Change'.

T. PIDCOCK."

For the reply of Hunt or one of his friends, "The Giant and the Dwarf," see Appendix VI.]

[Footnote 3: William Sotheby (1757-1833), once a cavalry officer, afterwards a man of letters and of fortune, published his 'Oberon' in 1798, and his 'Georgics' in 1800 (see 'English Bards, etc.', line 818, and 'note'). The following passage from Byron's 'Detached Thoughts' (1821) refers to him:

"Sotheby is a good man; rhymes well (if not wisely), but is a bore. He seizes you by the button. One night of a rout, at Mrs. Hope's, he had fastened upon me (something about Agamemnon or Orestes—or some of his plays), notwithstanding my symptoms of manifest distress, (for I was in love and had just nicked a minute when neither mothers, nor husbands, nor rivals, nor gossips, were near my then idol, who was beautiful as the Statues of the Gallery where we stood at the time). Sotheby, I say, had seized upon me by the button, and the heart-strings, and spared neither. W. Spencer, who likes fun, and don't dislike mischief, saw my case, and, coming up to us both, took me by the hand and pathetically bade me farewell, 'for,' said he, 'I see it is all over with you.' Sotheby then went away. 'Sic me servavit Apollo.'"]

[Footnote 4: See Catullus, xxix. 3:

"Quis hoc potest videre, quis potest pati, Nisi impudicus et vorax, et aleo, Mamurram habere, quod Comata Gallia Habebat uncti et ultima Britannia?"

See also xli. 4, xliii. 5 (compare Horace, 'Sat'. i. 5. 37), and lvii. 2.]



* * * * *



292.—To John Murray.

May 22nd, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I return the "Curiosities of Literature." [1] Pray is it fair to ask if the "Twopenny Postbag" is to be reviewed in this No.? because, if not, I should be glad to undertake it, and leave it to Chance and the Editor for a reception into your pages.

Yours truly,

B.

P.S.—You have not sent me Eustace's 'Travels'. [2]



[Footnote 1: The first volume of Isaac Disraeli's 'Curiosities of Literature' was published in 1791. The remaining volumes were published at intervals: vol. ii., 1793; vol. iii., 1817; vols. iv. and v., in 1823; vol. vi., 1834.]

[Footnote 2: John Chetwode Eustace ('circ'. 1762-1815) published his 'Tour through Italy' in 1813.]



* * * * *



293.—To John Murray.

May 23rd, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I question whether ever author before received such a compliment from his master. I am glad you think the thing is tolerably vamped and will be vendible.

Pray look over the proof again. I am but a careless reviser, and let me have 12 struck off, and one or two for yourself to serve as MS. for the thing when published in the body of the volume. If Lady Caroline Lamb sends for it, do not let her have it, till the copies are all ready, and then you can send her one.

Yours truly,

[Greek: Mpairon].

P.S.—H.'s book is out at last; I have my copy, which I have lent already.



* * * * *



294.—To John Murray.

June 2, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I presented a petition to the house yesterday, [1] which gave rise to some debate, and I wish you to favour me for a few minutes with the 'Times' and 'Herald' to look on their hostile report.

You will find, if you like to look at my 'prose', my words nearly 'verbatim' in the 'M. Chronicle'.

B'N.



[Footnote 1: The petition was from Major Cartwright, and was presented June 1, 1813. (For Byron's speech, see Appendix II. (3).) Returning from the House, he called on Moore, and, while the latter was dressing for dinner, walked up and down the next room,

"spouting in a sort of mock heroic voice, detached sentences of the speech he had just been delivering. 'I told them,' he said, 'that it was a most flagrant violation of the Constitution—that, if such things were permitted, there was an end of English freedom, and that—'

"'But what was this dreadful grievance?' asked Moore.

"'The grievance?' he repeated, pausing as if to consider, 'oh, that I forget.'"]



* * * * *



295.—To Thomas Moore.

My Dear Moore,—"When Rogers" [1] must not see the inclosed, which I send for your perusal. I am ready to fix any day you like for our visit. Was not Sheridan good upon the whole? The "Poulterer" was the first and best. [2]

Ever yours, etc.

1.

When Thurlow this damn'd nonsense sent, (I hope I am not violent), Nor men nor gods knew what he meant.

2.

And since not ev'n our Rogers' praise To common sense his thoughts could raise— Why would they let him print his lays?

3.

* * * * *

4.

* * * * *

5.

To me, divine Apollo, grant—O! Hermilda's first and second canto, I'm fitting up a new portmanteau;

6.

And thus to furnish decent lining, My own and others' bays I'm twining— So, gentle Thurlow, throw me thine in.



* * * * *



296.—To John Hanson.

June 3d, 1813.

Dear Sir,—When you receive this I shall have left town for a week, and, as it is perfectly right we should understand each other, I think you will not be surprised at my persisting in my intention of going abroad. If the Suit can be carried on in my absence,—well; if not, it must be given up. One word, one letter, to Cn. would put an end to it; but this I shall not do, at all events without acquainting you before hand; nor at all, provided I am able to go abroad again. But at all hazards, at all losses, on this last point I am as determined as I have been for the last six months, and you have always told me that you would endeavour to assist me in that intention. Every thing is ordered and ready now. Do not trifle with me, for I am in very solid serious earnest, and if utter ruin were, or is before me, on the one hand—and wealth at home on the other,—I have made my choice, and go I will.

If you wish to write, address a line before Saturday to Salthill Post Office; Maidenhead, I believe, but am not sure, is the Post town; but I shall not be in town till Wednesday next.

Believe me, yours ever,

BN.

P.S.—Let all the books go to Mr. Murray's immediately, and let the plate, linen, etc., which I find excepted by the contract, be sold, particularly a large silver vase—with the contents not removed as they are curious, and a silver cup (not the skull) be sold also—both are of value.

The Pictures also, and every moveable that is mine, and can be converted into cash; all I want is a few thousand pounds, and then adieu. You shan't be troubled with me these ten years, if ever.



* * * * *



297.—To Francis Hodgson.

June 6, 1813.

MY DEAR HODGSON,—I write to you a few lines on business. Murray has thought proper at his own risk, and peril, and profit (if there be any) to publish 'The Giaour'; and it may possibly come under your ordeal in the 'Monthly' [1] I merely wish to state that in the published copies there are additions to the amount of ten pages, text and margin (chiefly the last), which render it a little less unfinished (but more unintelligible) than before. If, therefore, you review it, let it be from the published copies and not from the first sketch. I shall not sail for this month, and shall be in town again next week, when I shall be happy to hear from you but more glad to see you. You know I have no time or turn for correspondence(!). But you also know, I hope, that I am not the less

Yours ever,

[Greek: MPAIRON].



[Footnote 1: 'The Giaour' was reviewed in the 'Monthly Review' for June, 1813 (N.S. vol. lxxi. p. 202). In the Editor's copy is added in MS. at the end of the article, as indicating the author of the review, the word "Den."]



* * * * *



298.—To Francis Hodgson.

June 8th, 1813.

My dear Hodgson,—In town for a night I find your card. I had written to you at Cambridge merely to say that Murray has thought it expedient to publish 'The Giaour' at his own risk (and reimbursement, if he can), and that, as it will probably be in your department in the 'Monthly', I wished to state that, in the published copies, there are additions to the tune of 300 lines or so towards the end, and, if reviewed, it should not be from the privately printed copy. So much for scribbling.

I shall manage to see you somewhere before I sail, which will be next month; till then I am yours here, and afterwards any where and every where,

Dear H., tutto tuo,

BN.



* * * * *



299.—To John Murray.

Je. 9, 1813.

Dear Sir,—I regret much that I have no profane garment to array you with for the masquerade. As my motions will be uncertain, you need not write nor send the proofs till my return.

Yours truly,

BN.

P.S.—My wardrobe is out of town—or I could have dressed you as an Albanian—or a Turk—or an officer—or a Waggoner.



* * * * *



300.—To John Murray.

June 12, 1813.

Dear Sir,—Having occasion to send a servant to London, I will thank you to inform me whether I left with the other things 3 miniatures in your care (—if not—I know where to find them), and also to "report progress" in unpacking the books? The bearer returns this evening.

How does Hobhouse's work go on, or rather off—for that is the essential part? In yesterday's paper, immediately under an advertisement on "Strictures in the Urethra," I see—most appropriately consequent—a poem with "strictures on Ld B., Mr. Southey and others,"[1] though I am afraid neither "Mr. S.'s" poetical distemper, nor "mine," nor "others," is of the suppressive or stranguary kind. You may read me the prescription of this kill or cure physician. The medicine is compounded at White and Cochrane's, Fleet Street. As I have nothing else to do, I may enjoy it like Sir Fretful, or the Archbishop of Grenada, or any other personage in like predicament.

Recollect that my lacquey returns in the Evening, and that I set out for Portsmouth [2] to-morrow. All here are very well, and much pleased with your politeness and attention during their stay in town.

Believe me, yours truly,

B.

P.S.—Are there anything but books? If so, let those extras remain untouched for the present. I trust you have not stumbled on any more "Aphrodites," and have burnt those. I send you both the advertisements, but don't send me the first treatise—as I have no occasion for Caustic in that quarter.



[Footnote 1: In the 'Morning Chronicle' (June 10, 1813) appeared advertisements of the two following books:—'Practical Observations on the best mode of curing Strictures, etc., with Remarks on Inefficacy, etc., of Caustic Applications'. By William Wadd. Printed for J. Callow, Soho. 'Modern Poets; a Dialogue in Verse, containing some Strictures on the Poetry of Lord Byron, Mr. Southey, and Others'. Printed for White, Cochrane, and Co., Fleet Street.

In a note on 'Modern Poets' (p. 7) occurs the following passage:

"In 'English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers' the same respectable corps of critics is successively exhibited, in the course of only ten lines, under the following significant but somewhat incongruous forms, viz. (1) Northern Wolves, (2) Harpies, (3) Bloodhounds."

In proof the writer quotes lines 426-437 of the Satire. Then follows a long review of 'Childe Harold', in which the critic condemns Harold, the hero, as "an uncouth incumbrance of this flighty Lord;" the want of "plot ... action and fable, interest, order, end;" and asks:

"Shall he immortal bays aspire to wear Who immortality from man would tear, Repress the sigh which hopes a happier home, And chase the visions of a life to come?"]

[Footnote 2: For Byron's intention to go abroad with Lord and Lady Oxford, see p. 164, 'note' 3 [Footnote 6 of Letter 256.]]



* * * * *



301.—To John Murray.

[Maidenhead], June 13, 1813.

Dear Sir,—Amongst the books from Bennet St. is a small vol. of abominable poems by the Earl of Haddington which must not be in ye Catalogue on Sale—also—a vol. of French Epigrams in the same predicament.

On the title page of Meletius is an inscription in writing which must be erased and made illegible.

I have read the strictures, which are just enough, and not grossly abusive, in very fair couplets. There is a note against Massinger near the end, but one cannot quarrel with one's company, at any rate. The author detects some incongruous figures in a passage of 'E. Bds'., page 23., but which edition I do not know. In the sole copy in your possession—I mean the fifth edition—you may make these alterations, that I may profit (though a little too late) by his remarks:—For "hellish instinct," substitute "brutal instinct;" "harpies" alter to "felons;" and for "blood-hounds" write "hell-hounds." These be "very bitter words, by my troth," and the alterations not much sweeter; but as I shall not publish the thing, they can do no harm, but are a satisfaction to me in the way of amendment. The passage is only 12 lines.

You do not answer me about H.'s book; I want to write to him, and not to say anything unpleasing. If you direct to Post Office, Portsmouth, till called for, I will send and receive your letter. You never told me of the forthcoming critique on 'Columbus' [1] which is not too fair; and I do not think justice quite done to the 'Pleasures', which surely entitles the author to a higher rank than that assigned to him in the 'Quarterly'. But I must not cavil at the decisions of the invisible infallibles; and the article is very well written. The general horror of "fragments" [2] makes me tremulous for "The Giaour;" but you would publish it—I presume, by this time, to your repentance. But as I consented, whatever be its fate, I won't now quarrel with you, even though I detect it in my pastry; but I shall not open a pye without apprehension for some weeks.

The Books which may be marked G.O. I will carry out. Do you know Clarke's 'Naufragia' [3]? I am told that he asserts the first volume of 'Robinson Crusoe' was written by the first Lord Oxford, when in the Tower, and given by him to Defoe; if true, it is a curious anecdote. Have you got back Lord Brooke's MS.? and what does Heber say of it? Write to me at Portsmouth.

Ever yours, etc.,

Bn.



[Footnote 1: Rogers's Columbus was reviewed by Ward in the Quarterly for March, 1813. The reviewer detects "evident marks of haste" in the poem.]

[Footnote 2: The Giaour, like Columbus, was written in fragments.]

[Footnote 3: James Stanier Clarke, a Navy Chaplain (1765-1834), published, in 1805, 'Naufragia, or Historical Memoirs of Shipwrecks'. In that work he does not himself attribute the first volume of 'Robinson Crusoe' to Lord Oxford. The following is the passage to which Byron refers ('Naufragia', vol. i. pp. 12, 13): "But before I conclude this Section, I wish to make the admirers of this Nautical Romance mindful of a Report, which prevailed many years ago; that Defoe, after all, was not the real author of Robinson Crusoe. This assertion is noticed in an article in the seventh volume of the 'Edinburgh Magazine' [vol. vii. p. 269]. Dr. Towers, in his 'Life' of Defoe in the 'Biographia', is inclined to pay no attention to it; but was that writer aware of the following letter, which also appeared in the 'Gentleman's Magazine' for 1788? (vol. lviii. part i. p. 208). At least no notice is taken of it in his 'Life' of Defoe:

"'Dublin, February 25.

"Mr. Urban,—In the course of a late conversation with a nobleman of the first consequence and information in this kingdom, he assured me, that Mr. Benjamin Holloway, of Middleton Stony, assured him, some time ago: that he knew for fact, that the celebrated Romance of 'Robinson Crusoe' was really written by the Earl of Oxford, when confined in the Tower of London: that his Lordship gave the manuscript to Daniel Defoe, who frequently visited him during his confinement: and that Defoe, having afterwards added the second volume, published the whole as his own production. This anecdote I would not venture to send to your valuable magazine, if I did not think my information good, and imagine it might be acceptable to your numerous readers, not-withstanding the work has heretofore been generally attributed to the latter. W. W.'

"It is impossible for me to enter on a discussion of this literary subject; though I thought the circumstance ought to be more generally known. And yet I must observe, that I always discerned a very striking falling off between the composition of the first and second volumes of this Romance—they seem to bear evident marks of having been the work of different writers."

A volume of memoranda in the handwriting of Warton, the Laureate, preserved in the British Museum, contains the following:

"Mem. Jul. 10, 1774. In the year 1759, I was told by the Rev. Mr. Benjamin Holloway, rector of Middleton Stony, in Oxfordshire, then about 70 years old, and in the early part of his life domestic Chaplain to Lord Sunderland, that he had often heard Lord Sunderland say that Lord Oxford, while a prisoner in the Tower of London, wrote the first volume of the History of Robinson Crusoe, merely as an amusement under confinement; and gave it to Daniel De Foe, who frequently visited Lord Oxford in the Tower, and was one of his Pamphlet writers. That De Foe, by Lord Oxford's permission, printed it as his own, and, encouraged by its extraordinary success, added himself the second volume, the inferiority of which is generally acknowledged. Mr. Holloway also told me, from Lord Sunderland, that Lord Oxford dictated some parts of the manuscript to De Foe. Mr. Holloway was a grave conscientious clergyman, not vain of telling anecdotes, very learned, particularly a good orientalist, author of some theological tracts, bred at Eton School, and a Master of Arts at St. John's College, Cambridge. He lived many years with great respect in Lord Sunderland's family, and was like to the late Duke of Marlborough. He died, as I remember, about the year 1761." ]



* * * * *



302.—To John Murray.

June 18, 1813.

Dear Sir,—Will you forward the enclosed answer to the kindest letter I ever received in my life, my sense of which I can neither express to Mr. Gifford himself nor to any one else?

Ever yours,

B'N.



* * * * *



303.—To W. Gifford.

June 18, 1813.

My Dear Sir,—I feel greatly at a loss how to write to you at all—still more to thank you as I ought. If you knew the veneration with which I have ever regarded you, long before I had the most distant prospect of becoming your acquaintance, literary or personal, my embarrassment would not surprise you.

Any suggestion of yours, even were it conveyed in the less tender shape of the text of the 'Baviad', or a Monk Mason note in Massinger, [1] would have been obeyed; I should have endeavoured to improve myself by your censure: judge then if I shall be less willing to profit by your kindness. It is not for me to bandy compliments with my elders and my betters: I receive your approbation with gratitude, and will not return my brass for your Gold by expressing more fully those sentiments of admiration, which, however sincere, would, I know, be unwelcome.

To your advice on Religious topics, I shall equally attend. Perhaps the best way will be by avoiding them altogether. The already published objectionable passages have been much commented upon, but certainly have been rather strongly interpreted. I am no Bigot to Infidelity, and did not expect that, because I doubted the immortality of Man, I should be charged with denying the existence of a God. It was the comparative insignificance of ourselves and our world, when placed in competition with the mighty whole, of which it is an atom, that first led me to imagine that our pretensions to eternity might be over-rated.