nt to fame. I certainly am
not, but I am indifferent to almost anything I have done to acquire it.
The greater part are mere compilations; and no wonder they are, as you
say, incorrect, when they are commonly written with people in the room,
as "Richard"[1] and the "Noble Authors" were. But I doubt there is a
more intrinsic fault in them: which is, that I cannot correct them. If I
write tolerably, it must be at once; I can neither mend nor add. The
articles of Lord Capel and Lord Peterborough, in the second edition of
the "Noble Authors," cost me more trouble than all the rest together:
and you may perceive that the worst part of "Richard," in point of ease
and style, is what relates to the papers you gave me on Jane Shore,
because it was tacked on so long afterwards, and when my impetus was
chilled. If some time or other you will take the trouble of pointing out
the inaccuracies of it, I shall be much obliged to you: at present I
shall meddle no more with it. It has taken its fate: nor did I mean to
complain. I found it was condemned indeed beforehand, which was what I
alluded to. Since publication (as has happened to me before) the success
has gone beyond my expectation.

[Footnote 1: He is here alluding to his own very clever essay, entitled
"Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III." It failed to
convince Hume; but can hardly be denied to be a singularly acute
specimen of historical criticism. It does not, indeed, prove Richard to
have been innocent of all the crimes imputed to him; but it proves
conclusively that much of the evidence by which the various charges are
supported is false. In an earlier letter he mentions having first made
"a discovery, one of the most marvellous ever made. In short, it is the
original Coronation Roll of Richard, by which it appears that very
magnificent robes were ordered for Edward V., and that he did or was to
walk at his uncle's coronation." The letter, from which this passage is
an extract, was to a certain extent an answer to one from Gray, who,
while praising the ingenuity of his arguments, avowed himself still
unconvinced by them.]

Not only at Cambridge, but here, there have been people wise enough to
think me too free with the King of Prussia! A newspaper has talked of my
known inveteracy to him. Truly, I love him as well as I do most kings.
The greater offence is my reflection on Lord Clarendon. It is forgotten
that I had overpraised him before. Pray turn to the