Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-09-01

mature judgment 10 sugges' The person who
found the first bag also found short distance from
\, box, say one by two feet dimensions, covered
with canvass, addressed to Messrs. Meyer s. HUI
peden, New York, which shall also forward by
'he Stage tonight Yours, very respectfully,
ID. FI1'Z RANDOLPH
GENERAL BAILEY.
Sir JVaher Scott. The first delivery of NJ
Gasselin's new edition of Sir Walter Scou's work
In lSmo. has appeared in Paris, and does much
credit to the French editor. This delivery con-
tains Tales Of my Landlord, The Black Dipdyf,
and Old Nort0hty. 1t is accompanied by a
fac sin''ite OF the following letter of Sir Walter
Scott to the translator, denying that he is the au-
thor -
10 NJ. ID. FAUCoNPREr, London.
Sir {: am favored with your letter. which pro-
ceeds on the erroneous superstition that am the
author OF Waverly and the other novels and tales
which you have translated into French But, as
this proceeds on mistake, though very general
one, have no title whatsoever either to become a
party to any arrangement to which that author or
his works may be concerned, or TO accept the very
handsome compliment which you design for him.
am, Sir, your obedient servant,
WALTER SCOTT.
EdHJurg, .april 10, 1926
This, il genuine. fully confirms what we hav e
always believed, being first led to this belief by
the rapditY of the multiplication of these works
and afterwards satisfied of it by the diversity and
inequality Of their texlure.1 Mat Int
The New York Commercial Advertiser contains
the following additional information, as to the
above letter, which proves it to be genuine, and of
course, that the Waverly novels were not written
by Sir Walter Scott. The question again recurs
tor discussion-who is The au,horS
Since our last publication, we have re- examined
our files OF London papers, and find that the letter
which we published yesterday, undS signature
of Scott appeared without ~ ks or com
ment, in the London Courier Of J4ly Is. And in
tie Courier of the 18th, find the letter to which
we last evening referred, from Mr.. Defsuconpret.
The translator, which we give as follows
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir have seen 10 day in your paper a conv
| OF letter have received from Sir Walter Scott
some years ago. AS have always thought. and
still think, that the publication of letter without
the knowledge Of its writer is a breach of conf
dence, j beg leave to declare that am a perfect
stranger 10 it. Mr.. Gosselin, Partisan boolSsel-
Ter, and the editor ofmy translation of the novels
oil the author OF Waueriy, in visit to London or
years ago, requested of me that letter only as
an object of curiosity; and as did not attach any
importance TO 1t, gave it as a matter ofcourse.-
have teen much surprised after such an interval
OF time to hear that he had caused fac siile of it
to be made, and inserted in a new edition of the
said novels. If that circumstance wound the feel
nss OF any one, nobody can be more sorry for il
than am, and have written TO Mr. Gosselin to
express to him my displeasure at an act 10 which
he has never been authorised by me. have the
honor to be, sir, your obedient humble sery't
DEFAUCONPRET.
No. D, Robert-st. Hampsiead-road, July 10.
The mystery of this singular affair, is rather in
creased than otherwise by this letter. For while
the letter of Sir Walter Scott bears the date of
April 18th, 1926, Mr. ID. declares It was written
to him &c a number Of gears SINCE The let
Ter oil Scott, moreover, the authenticity Of which
is not questioned by Mr.. D., is very singular
one. 1t is written with great careIessness and in
elegance; and the declaration that she has no
title whatsoever TO become party to any ar
rangement in which that author or his works NAV
be concerned, is utterly at war with the deposi-
ton made by him, the failure of Constable, that
he was the proprietor of the copy right Wewai,
for information.
Since writing the foregoing we perceive tina, the
editor OF the Boston Daily Advertiser has announc-
ed the letter from Sir Walter Scott and states tina,
1t is dated in 1921 But such is not the date in
the Courier, although it better corresponds with
the letter given by the translator. Query: If Mr..
Deiauconpret had such an .uneuuivocal denial in
his pocket so long ago "a 1921, how comes it tina,
he has continued TO publish the charming works in
question, as " the VooelS and Romances of Sir
Walter ScOtt?"