The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-08-03
had no such thought 10 my mind at the
time wrote the paragraph In question.

4
time wrote the paragraph In question.
Again: you make a big parade about
Sambo's weeping, and say that " perhaps the
professors when they read my article wept
ss Sambo did-so profusely that their eyes
were blinded" You know when you say
that YOU speak trash. You know that dll'
dersleeye, the eminent linguist; that vena-
HE. the distinguished mathematician ana SOL
dier and MalIett, the well-known and justly
celebrated chemist, are men made OF stern
er slutfo than that; that they are men, TOO,
who are not likely to let their intellectual
vision be easily clouded however much their
hearts may have "felt glow Of enthusiasm
over the old. old tines" You well know,
too, that they are men Of broad and cathollc
minds, of the highest culture, Of enlarged
experience, and extensive travel.
Sou do not seem, however, to CONSIDER
that they are men, too, who recognize, as all
true critics do, that "truth to nature land
YOU acknowledge that "Giendower has
"much truthtuipess to nature in ip') Is the
supreme standard of literary excellence.
As to your "mode of criticism" why, slrs,
the practice of it would at once overthrow
the best established literary authoriies-the
first writer's of our language. Even the
great Shakespeare himself, much less I" q
Young and inexperienced writer" would
tremble for his laures. You plunge head
long into the midst Of the article, seize an
individual sentence, draw 1t forth, and ois.
sect it in the most merciless manner. AT
this rate no wonder you have demolished
"Glepdowcr." tor even into " Hamlet" and
"Othelo," and ole liking Lear" himself,
YOU might in this manner make many 10.
roads, for the great dramatist was not over
pice in grammatical construction.
But have already written more than
intended, and much more than the present
condition of my health will justify. Were l
not still suffering from the rayages Of that Tell
disease meningitis, with which was prostrat'
ed during last session, should most assuredfS
reply to some of your criticisms. however,
/ am not physically able to proceed, so
shall content myself with simply saying tnat
if such competent and well.recogniZed au-
thorities as Professors Gidersleere, Venaole.
Mallet, and Holmes see cause to laud, nave
no especial need to care what the Richmond
Dispatch and Petersburg appeal have to say.
Respectfully, NJ. b. ALMOND.
The Appeal told us where we could find
Glcndower," and the copy we published
was the one to which that journal referred
Us. we 40 DOl uceLu IL hSSSsooiy W A>P'J
to DIR. Almonds article. We did not ex-
pect to open his eyes. Perhaps we should
add that when he says that "GlendoWer u
was conceived and written within the
same hour . he admits substantially that all
we have said of it is true. We might ex-
pect young man Gas ardent as southern
| sun " and bounding blood could make him
to write such an article, which the ARpea!
cbaracterizcs as unworthy of the Uni
yersity and its professors. We advise the
author of "Glendower TO read the Ap'
pears critique. What we said was mere
vinegar as compared with that papers gall
But, we repeat, we have no wish further to
| criticise such production. In the language Of
the accomplished editor of the Petersburg
Star Duly s1Sp we may say, elf 'Gien'
| DOVER was the best contribution of the
year. we respectfully suggest that the re-
| mainder be declared out of print" But il
the professors can afford to have their names
used to bolster up such production we car
| stand it.