Now, one word as to the Committee--how could they resolve on a rough copy of an _Address_ never sent in, unless you had been good enough to retain in memory, or on paper, the thing they have been good enough to adopt? By the by, the circ.u.mstances of the case should make the Committee less _avidus gloriae_, for all praise of them would look plaguy suspicious. If necessary to be stated at all, the simple facts bear them out. They surely had a right to act as they pleased. My sole object is one which, I trust, my whole conduct has shown; viz. that I did nothing insidious--sent in no Address _whatever_--but, when applied to, did my best for them and myself; but, above all, that there was no undue partiality, which will be what the rejected will endeavour to make out.
Fortunately--most fortunately--I sent in no lines on the occasion. For I am sure that had they, in that case, been preferred, it would have been a.s.serted that _I_ was known, and owed the preference to private friendship. This is what we shall probably have to encounter; but, if once spoken and approved, we sha"n"t be much embarra.s.sed by their brilliant conjectures; and, as to criticism, an _old_ author, like an old bull, grows cooler (or ought) at every baiting.
The only thing would be to avoid a party on the night of delivery--afterwards, the more the better, and the whole transaction inevitably tends to a good deal of discussion. Murray tells me there are myriads of ironical Addresses [2] ready--_some_, in imitation of what is called _my style_. If they are as good as the "Probationary Odes" [3], or Hawkins"s "Pipe of Tobacco" [4], it will not be bad fun for the imitated.
Ever, etc.
[Footnote 1: These added lines, as may be seen by reference to the printed Address, were not retained.]
[Footnote 2: Probably the reference is to "Rejected Addresses, or the New Theatrum Poetarum" (1812), by James (1775-1839) and Horace (1779-1849) Smith. "Cui Bono?" the parody on Byron, is the joint composition of James and Horace. The ma.n.u.script was offered to Murray for 20, but declined by him. It was afterwards published by John Miller, of Bow Street, Covent Garden, who also published "Horace in London".]
[Footnote 3: "Probationary Odes", which generally forms, with "Political Eclogues", the third portion of the "Rolliad", is really distinct from that work. It is the result of an imaginary contest for the laureate-ship. Each candidate was to deliver a "Probationary Birthday Ode," and among the candidates are Dr. Pretyman, Archbishop Markham, Thomas and Joseph Warton, Sir Cecil Wray, Sir Joseph Mawbey, Henry Dundas, Lord Thurlow, and other Tories of the day. The plan of the work is said to have been suggested by Joseph Richardson (1755-1803), who wrote Odes iv. (Sir Richard Hill) and xix. (Lord Mountmorres).]
[Footnote 4: "In Praise of a Pipe of Tobacco" (1736), written by Isaac Hawkins Browne (1705-1760), was an ode in imitation of Swift, Pope, Thomson, and other contemporary poets. Browne represented Wenlock in the Whig interest in the Parliaments of 1744 and 1747. Johnson spoke of him (Boswell, "Johnson", April 5, 1775) as "one of the first wits of this country," who "got into Parliament, and never opened his mouth."]
260.--To Lord Holland.
October 2, 1812.
A copy of this _still altered_ is sent by the post, but this will arrive first. It must be "humbler"--"_yet aspiring_" does away the modesty, and, after all, _truth is truth_. Besides, there is a puff direct altered, to please your _plaguy renters_.
I shall be at Tetbury by 12 or 1--but send this for you to ponder over.
There are several little things marked thus / altered for your perusal.
I have dismounted the cavalry, and, I hope, arranged to your general satisfaction.
Ever, etc.
At Tetbury by noon.--I hope, after it is sent, there will be no more elisions. It is not now so long--73 lines--two less than allotted. I will alter all Committee objections, but I hope you won"t permit _Elliston_ to have any _voice_ whatever,--except in speaking it.
261.--To John Murray.
Cheltenham, Oct. 12, 1812.
DEAR SIR,--I have a _very strong objection_ to the engraving of the portrait [1], and request that it may, on no account, be prefixed; but let _all_ the proofs be burnt, and the plate broken. I will be at the expense which has been incurred; it is but fair that _I_ should, since I cannot permit the publication. I beg, as a particular favour, that you will lose no time in having this done, for which I have reasons that I will state when I see you. Forgive all the trouble I have occasioned you.
I have received no account of the reception of the _Address_ [2], but see it is vituperated in the papers, which does not much embarra.s.s an _old author_. I leave it to your own judgment to add it, or not, to your next edition when required. Pray comply _strictly_ with my wishes as to the engraving, and believe me, etc.
Yours very truly,
BYRON.
P.S.--Favour me with an answer, as I shall not be easy until I hear that the _proofs_, etc., are destroyed. I hear that the _Satirist_ has reviewed _Childe Harold_ [3], in what manner I need not ask; but I wish to know if the old personalities are revived? I have a better reason for asking this than any that merely concerns myself; but in publications of that kind, others, particularly female names, are sometimes introduced.
[Footnote 1: A miniature by Sanders. Besides this miniature, Sanders had also painted a full-length of Byron, from which the portrait prefixed to the quarto edition of Moore"s "Life" is engraved. In reference to the latter picture, Byron says, in a note to Rogers,
"If you think the picture you saw at Murray"s worth your acceptance, it is yours; and you may put a glove or mask on it, if you like"
(Moore).]
[Footnote 2: On Sat.u.r.day, October 10, Drury Lane reopened with "The Devil to Pay" and "Hamlet". Then, after the whole body of actors had sung "G.o.d save the King" and "Rule, Britannia," Elliston delivered Byron"s address.]
[Footnote 3: "The Satirist, a Monthly Meteor" (see "Letters", vol. i. p.
321, "note" 3 [Footnote 3 of Letter 159]), ran from October, 1807, to 1814. Up to 1812 it was the property of George Manners, who sold it in that year to W. Jerdan. It reviewed "Childe Harold" in October, 1812 (pp. 344-358); and again in December of the same year (pp. 542-550). In the first of the two notices, the "Satirist" quotes the "judgment of our predecessors," that unless Byron "improved wonderfully, he could never be a poet," and continues thus:
"It is with unaffected satisfaction we find that he has improved wonderfully, and that he is a poet. Indeed, when we consider the comparatively short interval which has elapsed, and contrast the character of his recent with that of his early work, we confess ourselves astonished at the intellectual progress which Lord Byron has made, and are happy to hold him up as another example of the extraordinary effects of study and cultivation, "even" on minds apparently of the most unpromising description."
The reviewer severely condemns the morbid bitterness of the poet"s thought and feeling, but yet affirms that the poems
"abound with beautiful imagery, clothed in a diction free, forcible, and various. "Childe Harold", although avowedly a fragment, contains many fragments which would do honour to any poet, of any period, in any country."]