_Prince Otto_ was published in October of this year; and the following refers to two reviews of it--one of them by Mr. Henley, which to the writer's displeasure had been pruned by the editor before printing; the other by a writer in the Saturday Review who declared that Otto was "a fool and a wittol," and could see nothing but false style in the story of Seraphina's flight through the forest. _[Skerryvore, Bournemouth, Autumn 1885.]_ DEAR LAD,--If there was any more praise in what you wrote, I think [the editor] has done us both a service; some of it stops my throat. What, it would not have been the same if Dumas or Musset had done it, would it not? Well, no, I do not think it would, do you know, now; I am really of opinion it would not; and a dam good job too. Why, think what Musset would have made of Otto! Think how gallantly Dumas would have carried his crowd through! And whatever you do, don't quarrel with ----. It gives me much pleasure to see your work there; I think you do yourself great justice in that field; and I would let no annoyance, petty or justifiable, debar me from such a market. I think you do good there. Whether (considering our intimate relations) you would not do better to refrain from reviewing me, I will leave to yourself: were it all on my side, you could foresee my answer; but there is your side also, where you must be the judge. As for the Saturday. Otto is no "fool," the reader is left in no doubt as to whether or not Seraphina was a Messalina (though much it would matter, if you come to that); and therefore on both these points the reviewer has been unjust. Secondly, the romance lies precisely in the freeing of two spirits from these court intrigues; and here I think the reviewer showed himself dull. Lastly, if Otto's speech is offensive to him, he is one of the large class of unmanly and ungenerous dogs who arrogate and defile the name of manly. As for the passages quoted, I do confess that some of them reek Gongorically; they are excessive, but they are not inelegant after all. However, had he attacked me only there, he would have scored. Your criticism on Gondremark is, I fancy, right. I thought all your criticisms were indeed; only your praise--chokes me.--Yours ever, R. L. S. TO WILLIAM ARCHER The paper referred to in this and the following letters is one which Mr. Archer wrote over his own signature in the November number of Time, a magazine now extinct. _Skerryvore, Bournemouth, October 28, 1885._