THE FRIEND OF LAMB
Sne,—I do not find it as easy as Mr. Derek Hudson to believe `II " time-honoured " stories. Nor has his letter given any real evider‘err„ that Dyer fell into the river. Lamb himself was not present- letter to Sarah Harlin beginning with " It is the literal truth' ending with the vague statement that Dyer " marched " into , stream should at once set us surmising! While B. T. Pot acknowledges that he arrived a quarter of an hour after the evm he records. Nor can I accept E. V. Lucas as an " exceptional authority" Ivb6c Dyer is concerned. " G. D." was a member of my college at C2! bridge, and, tradition says, occupied rooms near my. own. So W years ago I examined carefully all that Lucas had written about Dyer, and came to the conclusion that he had given a certainly inadequate, if not unfair, portrait of Lamb's friend. Even in minor details Lucas is not always accurate. For example, in an article which he contributed to the Sunday Times of February 24th, 1937, on the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, he made merry over the dog " Nobit " in the famous picture of Dyer. But the dog was, of course, his favourite " Daphne," and indeed he refused to be painted unless she was beside him. It is strange that a dog-lover like Lucas did not recognise any difference between him and her!
No doubt Dyer was absent-minded. And this is not surprising in one who was teacher, preacher, poet, politician, social reformer, classicist, historian, traveller and universal friend. But until George Dyer's own description of the escapade is produced I shall continue to wonder whether Elia has not effectively gulled the world of letters
Previous page
