“‘So far this is the only thing I have cared to contradict; for I think the press, as a rule, has been generous to me, and to all of us. As for the point about the “ghost,” that does not matter; it is a lie, and, even if it be malicious, it will be corrected wherever we play “Hamlet.” It is true, our friend of the “Standard” may publish it; but truth will prevail even against his curiously persistent misrepresentations.’
“‘Oh, but,’ said my adviser, and he was backed by others, ‘the London “Standard” will not repeat such obvious nonsense, and the American people will not believe a mere Baltimore correspondent. Take no notice of it.’
“Thus the matter rested until the close of the journey. I hope I endure criticism with becoming fortitude, but a wilful and malicious falsehood reflecting upon my personal conduct frets me. I therefore resolved to send the following letter to the editor of the ‘Tribune’ (who had devoted much valuable space to my work, and whose personal courtesy I shall always remember):—
“‘Sir,—I value so highly the good opinion of the American people that it is painful to me to see any estimate of their education and culture misrepresented. In your journal of to-day a Baltimore despatch states that I have said: “The Americans are not yet fully educated to appreciate true artistic ability; they are progressing.” This statement is utterly untrue; and, while I take this opportunity to contradict it, I feel sure that America by this time knows me sufficiently well to believe that I am incapable of uttering such conceited nonsense, or of the bad taste and ingratitude which the correspondent desires to fix upon me.
“‘Faithfully yours,
“‘HENRY IRVING.’
Sometimes instinct is one’s best guide in dealing with mere personal matters. The invidious character of the newspaper report in this case is apparent, and my letter was, in many directions, referred to as a well-advised and necessary rejoinder to a calumny. The ‘Tribune’ mentioned it in the following terms, a day or two afterwards:—
“‘Mr. Irving’s recent card in the “Tribune,” concerning the absurd charge that he had disparaged American audiences, was graceful and manly. An imputation of invidious remarks to those persons who are prosperous in the public esteem is one of the commonest methods of malicious detraction. It has been used, of course, against Mr. Irving, who is altogether too fortunate a man for envy and malice to endure. An old remark, made by the poet Samuel Rogers, applies to this case: “To succeed is no little crime in the eyes of those who fail; and those who cannot climb will endeavor to pull you down by the skirts.“‘
“The ‘absurd charge’ was not too absurd, I learned later, for it appeared in the cable correspondence of the ‘Standard.’ You ask me for a few notes on my work in this great country. I hope you may consider this personal matter of sufficient interest. From the first I have been received with unbounded kindness; from the first I have played to large and enthusiastic audiences. My most sanguine hopes never reached so high as the success I have realized. Here and there, prompted, possibly, by the preliminary appeal of the ‘Standard’ to the American people ‘not to nail my ears to the pump’ (as the ‘Herald’ put it in commenting upon the article), and, encouraged by a parchment pamphlet circulated here, some few pressmen, of the Baltimore stamp, have had their malicious fling at me; but I have reason to be deeply grateful to the American critics and to the American people for judging me and my work in a spirit of honesty and fair play. The study of a lifetime, and the conscientious working out of my own convictions in regard to the representation of stage stories in a natural manner, have been stamped with the approval of the American people; and I shall return to my native land very proud of their artistic endorsement and their personal friendship.