voluntaries; odes to Liberty, and Spring; effusions; little tributes, and offerings, left behind him, upon tables and window-seats, at parting from friends’ houses; and from all the inns of hospitality, where he has been courteously (or but tolerably) received in his pilgrimage.  If his muse of kindness halt a little behind the strong lines, in fashion in this excitement-craving age, his prose is the best of the sort in the world, and exhibits a faithful transcript of his own healthy natural mind, and cheerful innocent tone of conversation.”

The foregoing passage called forth a protest from one W.K. necessitating the following reply from Lamb, which was printed in the London Magazine, under the “Lion’s Head,” for December, 1820:—­

“Elia requests the Editor to inform W.K. that in his article on Oxford, under the initials G.D., it is his ambition to make more familiar to the public, a character, which, for integrity and single-heartedness, he has long been accustomed to rank among the best patterns of his species.  That, if he has failed in the end which he proposed, it was an error of judgment merely.  That, if in pursuance of his purpose, he has drawn forth some personal peculiarities of his friend into notice, it was only from the conviction that the public, in living subjects especially, do not endure pure panegyric.  That the anecdotes, which he produced, were no more than he conceived necessary to awaken attention to character, and were meant solely to illustrate it.  That it is an entire mistake to suppose, that he undertook the character to set off his own wit or ingenuity.  That, he conceives, a candid interpreter might find something intended, beyond a heartless jest.  That G.D., however, having thought it necessary to disclaim the anecdote respecting Dr. ——­, it becomes him, who never for a moment can doubt the veracity of his friend, to account for it from an imperfect remembrance of some story he heard long ago, and which, happening to tally with his argument, he set too hastily to the account of G.D.  That, from G.D.’s strong affirmations and proofs to the contrary, he is bound to believe it belongs to no part of G.D.’s biography.  That the transaction, supposing it true, must have taken place more than forty years ago.  That, in consequence, it is not likely to ’meet the eye of many who might be justly offended.’

“Finally, that what he has said of the Booksellers, referred to a period of many years, in which he has had the happiness of G.D.’s acquaintance; and can have nothing to do with any present or prospective engagements of G.D., with those gentlemen, to the nature of which he professes himself an entire stranger.”

The result of the protest was that Lamb omitted the passage objected to when he collected Elia in 1823.  It might well be restored now; but I have preferred to print everything in the body of this edition as Lamb arranged it for press.