THE LOVE-LETTERS OF THOMAS CARLYLE AND
JA.Nt 'wEtsEt.
[To TEE EDITOR OF Tam "irrorkros."] long and interesting review of "Some New Carlyle Letters" (Spesicitor, April 10th) you have unfortu- nately fallen into one or two Serious errare, which rehect very tuijustly on my honesty as an editor, and Which, I trust and believe, you wiUbe willing to set, right. You say in reference to my note introducing Letter No. 17/ ,(Vol. II., pp. 827-28): "Surely it would have been fair to add that the scheme , of the 'Letters and .Metnorials' excludes reference to events prior to the Carlyles' residence in London." This is a grave mistake. Carlyle's scheme included the very earliest letters of Miss Welsh, as well as thode of later .dates. lie never authorised Me. Froude to suppress from the "Letters and Memorials" those prior to the settlement in Londoa (1834), or to omit about one-half of those subsequent to it. To transfer the earlier letters to his Life of Carlyle, to make a selection from Carlyle's selection and impose it on the public! as Carlyle's own, was only Mr. Froude's scheme. "Prepared for publication by Thomas Carlyle" are the misleading words in his title-page. It was therefore neither untrue tier unfair in me to say that Mr. Froude omitted the letter in question from his edition of the "Letters and Memorials." (See "New Letters and Memorials," I., pp. xix-xx.) Again, you cite a note which you call Carlyle's "final note" on this letter, and charge me with having suppressed it for reasons of my own. Your charge is altogether groundless. I state iii my preface to the "Love Letters" that "my copy has been taken in every case direct from the original letter, with the greatest care and exactitude." The original of Letter 174 lies open before me as I write. I find that it is printed correctly in the "Love Letters," and very incorrectly in Mr. ,Froude's "Life." I also find (a very important find indeed !) that there is not, on, in, or attached to, the letter, nor any the slightest indica- tion of there ever having been, a single word of the note which you blame me for having suppressed, while the note on the Carlyle pedigree is there in Carlyle's hand, exactly as I printed it! For reffirence, not for publication, Carlyle has docketed the letter thus :—" 1 Oct., 1826 !—Sent me by Mrs. G. Welth, 12 Oct., 1866 (au me !)—T. CARLYLE." May I ask you . to be good enough to give this letter insertion in your next issue P-
I am, Sir, dtc., A. CARLYLE. 30 Ncwbattle Terrace, Edinburgh.
[We are glad to find space for Mr. Carlyle's letter, but we cannot admit that our reviewer exceeded the limits of just and reasonable eritioism.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
