Gentleman, “Evil, be thou my Good," are from that very poem, from the mouth of Satan; and is there anything more in that of Lucifer in the Mystery? Cain is nothing more than a drama, not a piece of argument if Lucifer and Cain speak as the first Murderer and the first Rebel may be supposed to speak, surely all the rest of the personages talk also according to their characters-and the stronger passions have ever been permitted to the drama.

I have even avoided introducing the Deity, as in Scripture (though Milton does, and not very wisely either); but have adopted his Angel as sent to Cain instead, on purpose to avoid shocking any feelings on the subject by falling short of what all uninspired men must fall short in, viz., giving an adequate notion of the effect of the presence of Jehovah. The Old Mysteries introduced him liberally enough, and all this is avoided in the New one.

The Attempt to bully you, because they think it won't succeed with me, seems to me as atrocious an attempt as ever disgraced the times. What? when Gibbon's, Hume's, Priestley's, and Drummond's publishers have been allowed to rest in peace for seventy years, are you to be singled out for a work of fiction, not of history or argument? there must be something at the bottom of this-some private enemy of your own it is otherwise incredible. I can only say, Me, me, adsum qui feci; that any proceedings directed against you, I beg, may be transferred to me, who am willing, and ought, to endure them all; that if you have lost money by the publication, I will refund any or all of the Copyright; that I desire you will say, that both you and M Gifford remonstrated

MOORE AND THE "STOVE OF SOCIETY"

173

against the publication, as also Mr Hobhouse; that I alone occasioned it, and I alone am the person who, either legally or otherwise, should bear the burthen. If they prosecute, I will come to England-that is, if, by meeting it in my own person, I can save yours. Let me know you shan't suffer for me, if I can help it. Make any use of this letter which you please.

(1822, February 8. Letter 974, to John Murray, Vol. VI., p. 13.)

In the impartial Galignani I perceive an extract from Blackwood's Magazine, in which it is said that there are people who have discovered that you and I are no poets. With regard to one of us, I know that this north-west passage to my magnetic pole had been long discovered by some sages, and I leave them the full benefit of their penetration. I think, as Gibbon says of his History, "that, perhaps, a hundred years hence it may still continue to be abused." However, I am far from pretending to compete or compare with that illustrious literary character.

(1822, March 1.

Letter 980, to Thomas Moore, Vol. VI., p. 28.)

The truth is, my dear Moore, you live near the stove of society, where you are unavoidably influenced by its heat and its vapours. I did so once-and too much-and enough to give a colour to my whole future existence. As my success in society was not inconsiderable, I am surely not a prejudiced judge upon the subject, unless in its favour; but I think it, as now constituted, fatal to all great original under

takings of every kind. I never courted it then, when I was young and high in blood, and one of its "curled darlings"; and do you think I would do so now, when I am living in a clearer atmosphere? One thing only might lead me back to it, and that is, to try once more if I could do any good in politics; but not in the petty politics I see now preying upon our miserable country.

Do not let me be misunderstood, however. If you speak your own opinions, they ever had, and will have, the greatest weight with me. But if you merely echo the monde, (and it is difficult not to do so, being in its favour and its ferment,) I can only regret that you should ever repeat any thing to which I cannot pay attention.

(1822, March 4. Letter 981, to Thomas Moore, Vol. VI., p. 33.)

I hear that the Edinburgh has attacked the three dramas, which is a bad business for you; and I don't wonder that it discourages you. However, that volume may be trusted to Time,-depend upon it. I read it over with some attention since it was published, and I think the time will come when it will be preferred to my other writings, though not immediately. I say this without irritation against the Critics or Criticism, whatever they may be (for I have not seen them); and nothing that has or may appear in Jeffrey's review can make me forget that he stood by me for ten good years, without any motive to do so but his own good will.

(1822, May 17.

Letter 1003, to John Murray, Vol. VI., p. 64.)

BYRON AND THE EDINBURGH'S PIN-PRICKS 175

The defender of Cain may or may not be, as you term him, "a tyro in literature:" however, I think both you and I are under great obligation to him; but I suppose you won't think so, unless his defence serves as an advertisement. I have read the Edinburgh R. in Galignani's magazine, and have not yet decided whether to answer them or not; for, if I do, it will be difficult for me not "to make sport for the Philistines" by pulling down a house or two; since, when I once take pen in hand, I must say what comes uppermost, or fling it away. I have not the hypocrisy to pretend impartiality, nor the temper (as it is called) to keep always from saying what may not be pleasing to the hearer or reader. What do they mean by elaborate? why, you know that they were written as fast as I could put pen to paper, and printed from the original MSS., and never revised but in the proofs: look at the dates and the MSS. themselves; whatever faults they have must spring from carelessness, and not from labour: they said the same of Lara, which I wrote while undressing after coming home from balls and masquerades, in the year of revelry 1814.

(1822, June 6. Letter 1008, to John

Murray, Vol. VI., p. 76.)

I have not seen the thing you mention [Memoirs, Historical and Critical, of the Life and Writings of Lord Byron, etc., London, 1822], and only heard of it casually, nor have I any desire. The price is, as I saw in some advertisements, fourteen shillings, which is too much to pay for a libel on oneself. Some one said in a letter, that it was a D' Watkins, who deals

in the life and libel line. It must have diminished your natural pleasure, as a friend (vide Rochefoucault), to see yourself in it.

With regard to the Blackwood fellows, I never published any thing against them; nor, indeed, have seen their magazine (except in Galignani's extracts) for these three years past. I once wrote, a good while ago, some remarks on their review of Don Juan, but saying very little about themselves, and these were not published. If you think that I ought to follow your example (and I like to be in your company when I can) in contradicting their impudence, you may shape this declaration of mine into a similar paragraph for me. It is possible that you may have seen the little I did write (and never published) at Murray's-it contained much more about Southey than about the Blacks.

If you think that I ought to do any thing about Watkins's book, I should not care much about publishing my Memoir now, should it be necessary to counteract the fellow. But in that case, I should like to look over the press myself. Let me know what you think, or whether I had better not :—at least, not the second part, which touches on the actual confines of still existing matters.

(1822, August 8. Letter 1018, to Thomas Moore, Vol. VI., p. 99.)

I had sent you back the Quarterly, without perusal, having resolved to read no more reviews, good, bad, or indifferent; but "who can control his fate?" Galignani, to whom my English studies are confined, has forwarded a copy of at least one half of it,