Dear Miss H., -- Mary has such an invincible reluctance to any epistolary exertion that I am sparing her a mortification by taking the pen from her. The plain truth is, she writes such a mean, detestable hand that she is ashamed of the formation of her letters. There is an essential poverty and abjectness in the frame of them. They look like begging letters. And then she is sure to omit a most substantial word in the second draught (for she never ventures an epistle without a foul copy first), which is obliged to be interlined, -- which spoils the neatest epistle, you know. Her figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., where she has occasion to express numerals, as in the date (25th April, 1823), are not figures, but figurantes; and the combined posse go staggering up and down shameless, as drunkards in the daytime. It is no better when she rules her paper.
Her lines "are not less erring" than her words; a sort of unnatural parallel lines, that are perpetually threatening to meet, -- which, you know, is quite contrary to Euclid. Her very blots are not bold, like this [_here a large blot is inserted_], but poor smears, half left in and half scratched out, with another smear left in their place. I like a clear letter; a bold, free hand and a fearless flourish. Then she has always to go through them (a second operation) to dot her _i_'s and cross her _t_'s. I don't think she could make a corkscrew if she tried, -- which has such a fine effect at the end or middle of an epistle, and fills up.
Sign in to unlock this title
Sign in to continue reading, it's free! As an unregistered user you can only read a little bit.
