LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 7, 1888.
CONTENTS.—№ 106.
NOTES:—Bibliography of Thackeray’s ‘Letters,’ 1—MS. Service Book, 2—‘Dictionary of National Biography’—Trees as Boundaries, 3—The Silver Captain—Wag—Coco-nut, 4—Sparable—Rapier—Effects of English Accent, 5—J. Droeshout—Leaden Font—Star of Bethlehem—The Gurgoyles—The Devil’s Passing-Bell, 6.
QUERIES:—Punishment of “Carting”—W. Grant, Lord Preston-Grange—Googe’s ‘Husbandry’—Palace of Henry de Blois—Introduction of Ginger—English Flag in Paris—Castle Martyr Pictures—Grasshopper on Royal Exchange, 7—“Loose-girt boy”—“The Golden Horde”—Sir T. Thornhill—J. Donaldson—“Pricking the belt for a wager”—Ballads on the Armada—Armads Literature—J. Hussey—Articulo—Chronological Difficulty, 8—Gem Pyropus—‘Voyage to the Moon’—Customs—Authors Wanted, 9.
REPLIES:—Records of Celtic Occupation, 9—St. Enoch, 12—Morue—Why Betrothal and Marriage Rings are worn on the Fourth Finger—Kingsley’s Last Poom—Tooley Street Tailors, 13—Slipshod English—“On the cards”—E. Underhill—Ela Family—‘Greater London,’ 14—“Q in the Corner”—Biographical Dictionaries—“When cockle shells”—Goss, 15—The Sling—Public Penance, 16—Mitre in Heraldry, 17.
NOTES ON BOOKS:—Walte’s ‘Real History of the Rosicrucians’—Smiles’s ‘Life and Labour.’
Notices to Correspondents, &c.
Notes.
Bibliography of Thackeray’s ‘Letters.’
The mania for collecting first editions of contemporary authors appears to be of recent date, and it can only be said to have reached its full development within the last fifteen years. I have examined most of the library catalogues of the historic bibliophiles, and have discovered no evidence to show that they had any desire to enhance the fame of their coevals by raising the value of their early works to a fancy elevation. Editiones principes of the classical and Elizabethan authors have always been in favour, but not one of the bibliophiles of the last century, for instance, cared to preserve in “original boards uncut,” in a “pull-off case,” or in a richly decked morocco coat, the early productions of Goldsmith or Fielding, Gray or Johnson. Had they done so, early copies in good condition would not be so rare as they are now, and we should not be called on to pay fifty or sixty guineas for an uncut copy of the ‘Vicar of Wakefield.’ I have been an assiduous collector of Fielding for several years, but have hitherto failed to procure good uncut copies, say, of his ‘History of the Rebellion in Scotland, 1745, or his ‘Dialogue between the Devil, Pope, and Pretender.’ In later years, how few people seem to have preserved original copies of ‘Pickwick’ or Titmarsh’s ‘Comic Tales and Sketches.’ It is true their authors were not distinguished writers of the day, but any person with a grain of insight might have prophesied great things of “Boz” and “Michael Angelo,” and have preserved their works with bibliophilic care from the ravages of the kitchen and the nursery. Although acquainted with all the published bibliographies of Dickens, I have never yet met with a completely accurate description of ‘Pickwick’ as it originally appeared in parts. No writer of the time thought it worth while to record anything of that rare Part 3, with “Illustrations by R. W. Buss” on the cover, which is now the crux of a collector, but which we may hope to learn all about when the long-advertised “Victoria Edition” makes its appearance. It is with a view, therefore, to obviate any controversy with regard to the last work of the greatest humourist of the century that I purpose to crystallize in the columns of ‘N. & Q.,’ while the book is still wet from the press, a short discursus on the ‘Letters’ of William Makepeace Thackeray. The first instalment of these letters appeared in Scribner’s Magazine for April, 1887; the last in the number of that periodical for October, 1887. The published book issued from the press in September, 1887. Which, then, is the first edition; and is priority reckoned from the date on which the first letter was published, or from that on which the collection was completed? But a careful observer will perceive that there are variations between the two issues. The collected volume does not contain two of the cuts that appeared in Scribner, viz., the “Portrait of No. 913,” in the August number, p. 144, and the interesting “Portrait of Thackeray,” in the October number, p. 418. Nor does the book republish the little initial signature in the June number of Scribner, p. 690. On the other hand, Scribner does not show us the facsimile of Clough’s MS., “The Flags of Piccadilly,” opposite p. 82 of the book. It is evident that the moot point of priority of publication, and the variations between the two issues which I have noted, render it absolutely necessary for the conscientious collector to possess himself of both these editions, to the mutual advantage of New York and London. Having purchased these for the sake of bibliophily, let us hope that he will unite with most people in praying the publishers to produce, at no great interval of time, a volume which one may read in an easy chair without the intervention of a book-rest, and in which the mind will not be offended by such chronological vagaries as a letter attributed to July, 1850, being sandwiched in between one written at Christmas, 1849, and another with the date of February 26, 1850. I do not wish to be ill-natured; but better meat worse cooked has seldom been issued from the literary cuisine. This is a hard thing to sa⟨y⟩
