ℓ. 3

tive wisdom. I dare assert virtue has
few greater supports than what you
think so necessarily bad, prejudice-
es. But we will have a passage of arms
at Owsenford on Themmes, in the mo-
neth of Octobre, next after ensuing,
on this subject.

I am sorry to say I cannot send you a
sketch. All my pened sketches are in a
book, coloured sketches I have none, and
I have not the time to copy one in ink.
However though I have not the opportuni-
ty of sending you anything now, I will
try and keep something for you. I do
not promise, but will try.

If you should write again - I should of
course like a letter, but you may not
think it worth while so late in the long-
address Oak Hills, Hampstead, N.W. We
have Sharklin on Friday.

I am afraid you object to being critic.
A perfect critic is very rare, I know. Rus-
kin often goes astray; Servius, the com-
mentator on Virgil, whom I admire, is
often too observant and subtle for his
author, but nevertheless their excellen-
ces utterly outweigh their defects. The
most inveterate fault of critics is the
tendency to cramp and hedge in by
rules the free movements of genius, so
that I should say, according to the
Demosthenic and Catonic expression,
the first requisite for a critic is liber-
ality, and the second, liberality, and
the third, liberality. But more than
enough about criticism and criticism
on criticism. I agree with you, you know,
about general rules, but you are not
nearly the first to object to them. You
are only uttering your version of the
often repeated warning against the
dangers of generalizations.