He (G.) is at all sorts of things at this moment, including a memoir of Simon Lord Lovat, also a {132} formal attack on a priest (one M----) who writes an article every six months, making St. Patrick be born in a new place every time, as readily as if he were a kind of early Celtic Homer or Gladstone. Grant swears by Dumbarton; but whenever he crushes M---- in one place it is only to find him giving birth to the Saint again in a new one. [Sidenote: 1886, A troublesome Greek] A note to the editor of the _Review_ on the proper designation of a Greek named Bikelas, who had contributed an article, shows the extreme attention paid by Bute to such comparatively subsidiary points. The note was addressed from Dresden, which Lord and Lady Bute were visiting after their pilgrimage to Bayreuth, and where they prolonged their stay for several days (in spite of their usual eagerness to get home), in order to witness there another performance of the Nibelungen Tetralogy which they had seen at Bayreuth a few days previously. _Sept._ 14, 1886. Bikelas kicks against being called "the K. Bikelas": he wants the title "Mr." I tell him that we usually give foreigners the title they use themselves--not "Mr." Thus we say "M." not "Mr." Grévy--"Signor" not "Mr." Depretis--Herr not "Mr." von Hartmann--"Señor" not "Mr." Canovas." Greeks are vulgarly designated "M.," which must be wrong, as, whatever they are, they are not Frenchmen, nor are we. It is a mere blunder founded on ignorance. They themselves always use the style [Greek: _ho kúrios_]--e.g. [Greek: _ho_ K. _peparrêgopoulos_]. Consequently I maintain that they should be called in English "the K." So-and-so.[11] {133} Under Bute's regime the columns of the _Scottish Review_ were open to capable writers professing any religion or none; but he seems to have found the latitudinarian views of "[Greek: _ho K. Bikelas_]" as troublesome as his title. _December_ 11, 1886. B. is very tiresome indeed. The fact is, the man has lived more at Paris than has been good for him, and looks on anybody taking any interest in religion as a folly to be apologised for. This is a state of mind which will appear as strange and shocking in this country as it would in his own. I told him therefore that I thought I must "cook" his most free-thinking paragraphs, and he assented. Now he insists on having it all scepticised. I suppose that I must do as he wishes, and leave him--and ourselves--to the fate that may befall us. I fear, however, he won't be redeemed even by being sandwiched in between the Unknowable in front and the miracles of St. Magnus behind. There is, however, just the hope that the country ministers who do the notices won't see what he's driving at.