GHD’s article will not do. It is too long and the denial seems weak and confused; also, it ought to be in the form of a letter to the editor. Encloses draft of the sort of letter of denial he thinks GHD should write.
Showing 1–4 of 4 items
GHD’s article will not do. It is too long and the denial seems weak and confused; also, it ought to be in the form of a letter to the editor. Encloses draft of the sort of letter of denial he thinks GHD should write.
Has no objection to sending GHD’s letter as it is. The only accusation it seems necessary to rebut is about licentiousness. Regrets this is not made more prominent.
Gives some suggestions for GHD’s reply to Mivart’s attack.
Approves of GHD’s letter [to Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 587–9] and his present plan, which removes all CD’s objections. Will make his own letter to Murray less imperious. "It will be a dreadful evil to me, if … we come to a quarrel."
Likes GHD’s article ["Professor Whitney on the origin of language", Contemp. Rev. (1874): 894]. "You have defended me nobly."