enough, being
undated and only a "suggestion"; he should have it without
fail at my death, or Stevenson's.[130]

When alas! this latter came, I prepared to act up to my
promise; but, alas! again, the umbrella had vanished! Some
prated of mislaying in house-removal, of illicit use by
servants, etc.; but for my part I had and have no doubt that
the thing had been enskyed and constellated--like Ariadne's
Crown, Berenice's Locks, Cassiopeia's Chair, and a whole
galaxy of other now celestial objects--to afford a special
place to my dead friend then, and to my live one when (may
the time still be far distant) he is ready for it.

As for the more serious subject of the letter, I must refer
curious readers to an essay of mine on Lockhart, originally
published in 1884 and reprinted in _Essays in English
Literature_ some years later. To this reprint I subjoined,
_before_ I got this letter from R. L. S., a reasoned defence
of Lockhart from the charge of cowardice and "caddishness":
but it is evident that Stevenson had not yet seen it. When
he did see it, he wrote me another letter chiefly about my
book itself, and so of no interest to the public, but
touching again on this Lockhart question. He avowed himself
still dissatisfied: but said he was sorry for his original
remark which was "ungracious and unhandsome" if not untrue,
adding, "for to whom do I owe more pleasure than to
Lockhart?"

54.

My dear Saintsbury,

Thanks for yours. Why did I call Lockhart a cad? That calls for an
answer, and I give it. "Scorpion"[131] literature seems at the best no
very fit employment for a man of genius, which Lockhart was--and none at
all for a gentleman. But if a man goes in for such a trade, he must be
ready for the consequences; and I do not conceive a gentleman as a
coward; the white feather is not his crest, it _almost_ excludes--and I
put the "almost" with reluctance. Well, now about the duel? Even
Bel-Ami[132] turned up on the _terrain_. But Lockhart? _Et responsum est
ab omnibus, Non est inventus._[133] I have often wondered how Scott took
that episode.[134] I do not know how this view will strike you;[135] it
seems to me the "good old honest" fashion of our fathers, though I own
it does not agree with the New Morality. "Cad" may be perhaps an
expression too vivacious and not well chosen; it is, at least