IN DEFENCE OF BORROW. When the publishers of "The Minerva Library" invited me to write a few introductory words to this edition of Borrow's "Romany Rye," I hesitated at first about undertaking the task. For, notwithstanding the kind reception that my "Notes upon George Borrow" prefixed to their edition of "Lavengro" met with from the public and the Press, I shrank from associating again my own name with the name of a friend who is now an English classic. But no sooner had I determined not to say any more about my relations with Borrow than circumstances arose that impelled me, as a matter of duty, to do so. Ever since the publication of Dr. Knapp's memoirs of Borrow attacks upon his memory have been appearing--attacks which only those who knew him can repel. His has indeed been a fantastic fate! When the shortcomings of any illustrious man save Borrow are under discussion, "_les defauts de ses qualites_" is the criticism--wise as charitable--which they evoke. Yes, each one is allowed to have his angularities save Borrow. Each one is allowed to show his own pet unpleasant facets of character now and then--allowed to show them as inevitable foils to the pleasant ones--save Borrow. _His_ weaknesses no one ever condones. During his lifetime his faults were for ever chafing and irritating his acquaintances, and now that he and they are all dead these faults of his seem to be chafing and irritating people of another generation. A fantastic fate, I say, for him who was so interesting to some of us! One writer assails him on account of his own ill-judged and unwarrantable attacks upon a far greater man than himself--Sir Walter Scott; another on account of his "no-popery" diatribes; another on account of his amusing anger over "Charley o'er the Waterism." When Mr. Murray's new and admirable edition of "The Romany Rye" came out this year, a review of the book appeared in the _Daily Chronicle_, in which vitality was given--given by one of the most genial as well as brilliant and picturesque writers of our time--to all the old misrepresentations of Borrow and also to a good many new ones. The fact that this review came from so distinguished a writer as Dr. Jessopp lends it an importance and a permanency that cannot be ignored. To me it gave a twofold pain to read that review, for it was written by a man for whom I have a very special regard. I cannot claim Dr. Jessopp as a personal friend, but I have once or twice met him; and, assuredly, to spend any time in his society without being greatly attracted by him is impossible. I must say that I consider it quite lamentable that he who can hardly himself have seen much if anything of Borrow should have breathed the anti-Borrovian atmosphere of Norwich--should have been brought into contact with people there and in Norfolk generally who did know Borrow and who disliked, because they did not understand, him.