Sir,-It has always been my rule not to enter into argument with
my critics, but in the instance of "R. I." I find myself obliged
to break my rule. "R. I." thinks that the mistake I slipped into
regarding Mr. Burne-Jones's election as an Associate vitiates the
argument which he says I propound with vigour. I, on the contrary,
think that the fact that Mr. Burne-Jones was elected as an
Associate before he had exhibited in the Royal Academy advances
my argument. Being in doubt as to the particular fact, I
unconsciously imagined the general fact, and when man's imagination
intervenes it is always to soften, to attenuate crudities which
only nature is capable of.
For twenty years, possibly for more, Mr. Burne-Jones was a resolute
opponent of the Royal Academy, as resolute, though not so truculent,
an opponent as Mr. Whistler. When he became a popular painter Mr.
Agnew gave him a commission of fifteen thousand pounds--the largest,
I believe, ever given--to paint four pictures, the "Briar Rose"
series. Some time after--before he has exhibited in the Academy--Mr.
Jones is elected as an Associate. The Academicians cannot plead that
their eyes were suddenly opened to his genius. If this miracle had
happened they would not have left him an Associate, but would have
on the first vacancy elected him a full Academician. How often have
they passed him over? Is Mr. Jones the only instance of a man being
elected to the Academy who had never exhibited there? Perhaps "R. I."
will tell us. I do not know, and have not time to hunt up records.