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.
Pages:
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311