Page:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 1.djvu/45

2nd S. No 2., ] I put the question to him, he has been induced to look "a little closer into the subject;" and now he tells us, as the result, that&mdash;

"There never was but one copy of the letters printed on and bound in vellum with gilt edges, lettered, &c., according to the direction of Junius."

Thus the many of 1851 has become one in 1855. That another four years may not be wasted in waiting for a reply, I will not ask his authority for this latter assertion, that one copy was printed on vellum, but state at once that he has no authority. We all know that Junius directed Woodfall (Private Letter, No. 47.) to have a copy of the edition of 1772 "bound in vellum." It suits 's speculations to find this copy, and he, in defiance of notorious facts, now asserts that it has been found, and was sold at Stowe. The readers of "N. & Q." know (1st S. . 304. 333.), and must have known, had he been pleased to "look a little farther," or not wilfully to shut his eyes, that the copy sold at Stowe was printed on vellum, and not bound in vellum&mdash;that it was not a copy of "the author's edition" to which only the directions of Junius can apply&mdash;not of the edition of 1772&mdash;not a Woodfall edition at all&mdash;but an edition printed more than twenty years after Junius gave his directions&mdash;a copy of Bensley's edition. No doubt Bensley, wishing to produce a choice specimen of typography, printed a copy, after the foolish fashion of his day, on vellum. If has any doubt as to the existence of this fashion, let him consult one or other of our old booksellers. I could refer him to more than a dozen works, of which sometimes one, and sometimes two copies, were printed on vellum by the Stevensons of Edinburgh alone.

's whole argument, if it deserve to be so called, is founded on like assertions,&mdash;"rumours," I suppose they would be called, if questioned. Thus he asks how came the vellum-bound copy in the hands of the Grenvilles? It never was in the hands of the Grenvilles. "It is proved that Junius had an amanuensis"&mdash;it is not proved. That Mrs. Dayrolles "was acquainted with the secret," is mere assertion to suit 's theory. That Mr. H. S. Woodfall never "pretended to know anything of the fate of the parcel" containing the vellum-bound is true; but true only because he was never asked. The correspondence in the ''Gent. Mag''., says, "proves that the vellum-bound copy was in existence in 1786." The correspondence proves nothing, and 's presumption is founded, as usual, on nothing. The "lynx-eyed," I presume, allowed the paragraph quoted to pass without comment, and very naturally, because every word in it had warrant in the published letters; and if with it "solves a mystery," that mystery was solved, to all who read with attention, when the edition of 1812 was first published.

In pointing out the errors of other people in my article of last week, under the above head, I have fallen into a very singular, but I trust not unpardonable, blunder myself. I there spoke of Mr. E. V. Utterson as dead; I am most happy to be informed that he is living and well, but during the last six months at least, I have been, I hardly know how, under the unfortunate persuasion that he had ceased to be among us. My notion was that I had heard one of my family read the account of Mr. Utterson's decease from The Times, but I must have been mistaken; and the only apology I can now make is, at once to acknowledge the error, and to express my hearty sorrow for having fallen into it, as well as my hearty joy at the continued health of a gentleman to whom I have been under so many literary obligations. These obligations I not only did not scruple to admit, but I was glad to admit them at the moment I was so incautious in the statement of them. It may be some excuse to say that, residing at a distance from London, I had not any ready means of inquiry; but, on the other hand, this very circumstance ought to have rendered me more careful. The commencement of my article shows how strong was the conviction in my mind; it never suggested itself to me as a matter of doubt. I think I know Mr. Utterson well enough to feel sure that he will accept the amends contained in this note.

Maidenhead, Jan. 8, 1856.

Photographic Fac-similes of Old Documents.&mdash;'s late Letter to The Times on some difficulties in the application of photography to the production of facsimiles of MSS., was a heavy blow and great discouragement to the practice of the Art, in a department to which we believe it to be eminently adapted. We have great pleasure, therefore, in reproducing in our columns Mr. Delamötte's Letter to the same journal on this important subject; and we hope that able and practised photographer will complete the good work he has thus commenced, by communicating some practical suggestions as to the best mode of making photographic copies of early documents and printed books:&mdash;

"Sir,&mdash;In your journal of the 6th alt., there appeared a letter from Mr. Maxwell Lyte on photographic facsimiles of old documents, which is calculated to discourage attempts in one of the most valuable applications of the photographic art; but, as the statements contained in this letter are at variance with the experience of most photographers, I think, for the credit of the art, they ought not to pass uncontradicted.