gave you his Journal so long as thirty years ago. I scarce knew that I
was so constant in my Affections: and yet I think I do _not_ change in
literary cases. Pray read Southey's Life of him again: it does not tell
all, I think, which might be told of Wesley's own character from his own
Mouth: but then it errs on the right side: it does not presumptuously
guess at Qualities and Motives which are not to be found in Wesley:
unlike Carlyle and the modern Historians, Southey, I think, cannot be
wrong by keeping so much within the bounds of Conjecture: Conjecture
about any other Man's Soul and Motives!

_To FitzEdward Hall_. {220a}

WOODBRIDGE: _June_ 24 [1877].

MY DEAR SIR,

I have run through your _Ability_ {220b} again, since I sent it to
Wright: but as I before said (I believe) am not a competent Critic. I
know that I coincide (unless I misconstrue) with your Canons laid down at
pp. 162, etc. I am for all words that are smooth, or strong, (as the
meaning requires) which have proved their worth by general admission into
the Language. '_Reliable_' is, what '_trustworthy_' is not, good current
coin for general use, though '_trustworthy_' may be good too for
occasional emphasis.

I remember old Hudson Gurney cavilling a little at '_realize_' as I
innocently used the word in a Memoir of my old Bernard Barton near thirty
years ago: this word I have also seen branded as American; let America
furnish us with more such words; better than what our 'old English'
pedants supply, with their '_Fore-word_' for 'Preface,' '_Folk-lore_,'
and other such conglomerate consonants. Odd, that a Lawyer (Sugden)
should have lubricated '_Hand-book_' by a sort of Persian process into
'Handy-book'!

I remember, years ago, thinking I must rebel against English by using
'_impitiable_' for 'incapable of Pity.' Yet I suppose that, according to
Alford & Co., I was justified, though 'pitiable' is, I think always used
of the thing pitied, not the Pitier. But I should defer to customary
usage rather than to any particular whim of my own; only that it happened
to come handy at the time, and I did not, and do not, much care.

But is not usage against your use of '_imitable_' at p. 100, meaning what
_ought not_, not what _cannot_, be imitated? 'Non imitabile fulmen,'
etc., and, negatively, '_inimitable_'?

'_Vengeable_' with its host of Authorities surprised, and gratified, me.

Johnson, you say (p. 34) called '_uncomeatable_' a low corrupt