TALBOT6086

Lacock Abbey, Chippenham
Professor Key
11 Jan^y /48

D^r Sir

I received one letter from you not long ago, forwarded from the Athenæum Club, ¹ which I have no doubt is the letter you speak of –

I send you a copy of the Literary Gazette containing my reply to the Q. Review ² – In this reply I was confined to noticing the points which had been especially attacked by the Reviewer, and I was obliged to treat them in a popular style, not at all as I would have done if I had been defending them before the Philological Society or any other body of scholars and competent judges –

The fact is, that if I had been aware of the villainy (I will use no lesser term) of some miscalled literary men, I would not have published this comparatively unimportant volume until after I had completed and published a work which I believe to be a really important one, on European philology and the state of ancient or I rather mean to say primæval Europe.

I was not aware of the danger I ran in publishing a desultory and rambling volume, viz. of being knocked down by a ruffian before I had time to open my mouth – After I have laid before the public the results of the researches I allude to, I will give him ^leave to say what he pleases. There is no end to the catalogue of my deficiencies in the Q. Review. Judge of their truth from the following – It is said that I have only a dictionary acquaintance, if so much, with German; that is of course, that I cannot read that language. This is said without proof, and without the least attempt at proof. Now the fact is, that for fully twenty five years I have quite [sic] familiar with German, reading it with nearly as much facility as English. The object of such a shameless accumulation [sic] of his passes my power of guessing – I was not aware that I had a personal enemy in the literary world or that a great Review would allow itself to be made the vehicle of private hostility.

L^d Brougham has written a treatise ³ on the pursuit of knowledge under difficulties – the greatest difficulties which beset the path of knowledge are caused by the conduct of literary men themselves (or calling themselves such). You will perhaps let me know whether the name of the Reviewer has been mentioned to you, and if so whether he is a person of any note in the literary world or not. Of this particular subject of etymology he certainly knows next to nothing

Believe me yours very truly
H. F. Talbot