into a second "Norfolk giant."
You will remember that he always addressed George by that pet name.
But what do you think of Dr. Jessopp's saying that Borrow's voice was
not that of a man? You yourself have spoken in some of your
writings--I don't exactly remember where and when--of the "trumpet-
like clearness" of Borrow's voice. As to his being beardless and
therefore the "Narses of Literature" it is difficult to imagine that a
man of intelligence, as I suppose Dr. Jessopp is, can really think
virility depends upon the growth of a man's whiskers, as no doubt
ignorant people often do. I should have thought that a man who knew
Norfolk well would know that it is notable for its beardless giants of
great power. I really think that, as Borrow's most intimate friend in
his latest years (I mean after my father left Roehampton for Germany),
it is your duty to write something and stand up for the dear old boy,
and you are the one man now who can defend him and do him justice. I
assure you that the last time that I ever saw him his talk was a good
deal about yourself. I remember the occasion very well; it was just
outside the Bank of England, when he was returning from one of those
mysterious East-end expeditions that you wot of: he was just partially
recovering from that sad accident which you have somewhere alluded to.
As to Dr. Jessopp, it is clear from his remarks upon a friend of
Borrow's--the Rev. Mr. John Gunn, of Norwich, that he never saw
Borrow. Gunn, he says, was of colossal frame and must have been in
his youth quite an inch taller than Borrow. And then he goes on to
say that Gunn's arm was as big as an ordinary man's thigh. Now you
and I and George, are specially competent to speak of Borrow's
physical development, for we have been with Borrow when at seventy
years of age he would bathe in a pond covered with thin ice. He then
stood six feet four and his muscles were as fully developed as those
of a young man in training. If Gunn was a more colossal man than
Borrow he certainly ought to have been put into a show. But you
should read the entire article, and I wish I had preserved it.

Yours ever affectionately,
THOMAS ST. E. HAKE.

I consider this an interesting document to all Borrovians. There are
only two things in it which I have to challenge. I infer that Mr. Hake
shares the common mistake of suppos