To S. Hamilton
EsqrEditor of the Lady's
Magazine
Three Mile Cross
April 9th 1823.
My dear Sir
I avail myself of the return of our friend Mr.
Talfourd to send you another article for the magazine The Lady's
Magazine--I have one half written, which you
shall have by the middle of next week at latest--much sooner if I can find an
opportunity--on the subject of the "Mayings" which the
country people hold in the North of Hampshire--I mention this to you because perhaps on account of the
subject you might like to keep room for it this month--It will be rather longer than
the enclosed but not much.
I find that my Father explained to you the
mistake respecting
Foscari--Be assured that it
was not intentional--I won't at all know what will be the event of that play--but as
you say
there is no hurry. I should at all events wish
to keep open
communication with
Mr. Elliston if not for
Here a tear in the
paper obliterates the rest of the line. There is no evidence of what is missing
from the end of the line. Here, "for" appears twice; this is how it appears in the
letter, and is not a typo. This may be due to the gap at the end of the line where
a word may be missing. The missing words could possibly be "that, then" or "it,
then", given the context. for other tragedies--if ever I get courage enough
to write more for really I have been so attacked as a woman (I do not mind fair
criticism--or any criticism on the work) the
Author
has been so mixed up with her production, that it is like going into a field of
battle to produce a successful play. This must account for & excuse to you the
feelings of very unusual irritation under which you saw me--Do not judge of me by the
temper I showed then--for really I am a very peaceful quiet person except when so
terribly excited--& at present the nervousness having subsided I feel nothing but
thankfulness--a deep & abiding thankfulness to all concerned in
Julian--& am very far indeed from entering into
any cabal against the Manager--As far as
Macready would be from wishing to engaging me in one.--At present The
Foscari will remain in the Theatre--perhaps
they may return it--but if not it does not seem right to
Mr. Talfourd or to me to withdraw it at
present.
The
last No. of the magazine is very good indeed--I have shown it to several persons in
this neighborhood as well as distributed the extra copies & have great hopes that
it will be taken in by several families--I mean of course
our magazine.--Can you at all tell who wrote the article on
Julian in the
London?
Mitford is probably referring to the review of
Julian in The London Magazine published in April
1823. The review praised the clarity of the characters and dialogue, but
condemned the plot and acting. Overall, the review held more respect for Mitford's
written publication than the stage performance of the play.I exceedingly
wish to know--you know I suppose that my reason for wishing
Foscari out of
Covent Garden is that
Mr. Macready (to whom I am under so great
obligations) may not be called upon to play the
Doge--
Mr. Kemble I know wishes it
performed & if they had
Mr. Young next
season I should not object--only I do not wish to be so ungrateful as to impose a
part he dislikes on
Mr. Macready--Of course
this is between ourselves.--My
Father begs
his compliments
dear sir
Very truly
your's
yours
MR Mitford
S. Hamilton Esqre
30 Judd Street
Brunswick Square