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 word: rather, as you well say, 'a permissible colloquialism.' Yes; like old Johnson's own '_Clubable_' by which he designated some Good sociable Fellow. '_Party_' has good Authority (from Shakespeare himself, as we know), and is a handy word we ought not to dismiss: better than the d---d '_Individual_' which should only be used in philosophic or scientific discrimination. Still, Crabbe, in his fine Opium-inspired 'World of Dreams' should not recall his beloved as '_that dear Party_.' Other adjectives beside those that 'exit in _able_' are cavilled at. '_Fadeless_'; what is '_a Fade_'? Why not 'unfading'? Yet there is a difference between what has not as yet faded, and what _cannot_ fade. And I shall become very '_tiresome_,' though I don't know of any '_tire_' but of a Waggon wheel; and remain yours truly. E. FITZGERALD. _To C. E. Norton_. WOODBRIDGE. _August_ 21/77. MY DEAR SIR,