Cotmania. Vol. XI. 1935-6

You have a habit of introducing quite justifiably as an inference or surmise & then repeating it & letting it grow as if it were a fact. Hence many of my marginal notes & queries. If you weren't on the whole so fully documented of course romancing w[oul]d be more in keeping: but as it is the reader ought to feel that he can trust you everywhere as he would do when you have documents.
My principal quarrel as you once surmised is with your treatment of Dawson Turner at Yarmouth. I see no evidence that he was master & Cotman a slave. No doubt it was unfortunate that Cotman's one time patron sh[oul]d have shared just Cotman's most unlucky characteristic HIS HOBBY, but that is what happened. If he had come across a patron who hadn't fallen in with his [[neo G]] archaeological fury of the moment he w[oul]d most probably have deserted him for anybody who was. Cotman thought that he'd get fame etc. from those public[atio]ns. D.T. [Dawson Turner] helped him in this & other respects & Cotman failed. [[I]]
This is very hurried. I haven't done your book justice I know. Burn my notes if you don't like them. In general however some moderate modification of language w[oul]d meet my point.
What is the Art Professorship at Oxford? Is the Slade Professorship already on the market?
Yours ever,
Paul Oppé