The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-04-08
A REPLY TO MIR. CONWAY
nywn PHIGIP BRUCE or IN"
a,x,.xxGAziyE OF HIsroRf.
r,. Latter Complains of a N""'e'
Errors In the " Barons oil the
and the Rsppahsnnock'
p,cbmond, va. April 2 lS''

~ the Virginia MaSaHlic W
oor,cc in your Sunday issue "'"'
have permitted the columns oil ui"'
it,, % he used as a medium Tor 'n0
...,,roee,on Of private spite against n''''
or to repeat his own worus' do -. .,
fran which TO shoot poisoneu
hog TO say that he makes an aS'e' ~
...os,,nontious. and so entirety
unfounded. as to be un"or.nS m ,ot
rofutation. such an asseruo" ~" ,,h
oh,oin even a momentary eIeue"so -,
,bneo who have read the orlsiiia 10
~ tho "Barons Of the Potohach ar,
,,.'.ohonnoc< in the October h"iiD
Of the Magazine, or ms -, myself
Iii With an introduction by rnS-,
and notes bv the critic. when apP0"rO
~ tho January number. All N"o i10'
sufficient interest in the SUBJECT -
ferred TO these articles taNe" W. 49,
for the proof of the correctness Vi 'hl'
statement on my part. -,...
Mr.. Conway seems to rest MS ehai Ne
of malevolence largely on the tact that
the original review was without any sig
nature. fact for which l alone was
responsible. IL was admitted unsigned
simply because, as Mr.. Conway very well
knows. il is not customary 10 attach sig
natures to reviews of books, in magazines
or newspapers. There WIS no signature
TO the review of Campbel's puritan IN
England, Holland and America, when
was printed in the July number or the
Virginia Magazine Of History, the writer
being one of the most distinguished mem
bers Of the Richmond bar although thdt
review criticized with great severity the
misstatements Of Mr.. Campbelfs volumes.
AS 10 the historical points in controversy
|
leave them to be settled between them. In
such q controversy, should the critic take
I'D the gage which has been thrown down,
l am confident that he is perfectly capable
Of holding his own. either in defense or
attack. ! am authorized to say that the
critic is Mr.. William g. Stanard, OF this
city
I have been greatly surprised at the
extreme irritability which Mr.. Conway
has shown, not only in the columns OF
the Richmond Times. but also of the
New York Nation, with reference to the
review of his book in the Virginia Maya
zine of History Is it his habit TO rush
into print to reply to every critic who
points out the inaccuracies in his ollie
tante though highly entertaining histori-
cal sketches? Is the condition or his
mind so morbid that he discovers in every
unfavorable review of his works the
venom of private enemy, or is he
haunted by a suspicion that his course
towards his native State. before and
during the late war, has made him 20
Nirgnians. an object Of aversion and also
of attack when fitting opportunity pre-
sents itself? | repudiate with the strong
est emphasis such an unworthy motive
so far as the Virginia Magazine Of His
tory. myself. and his critic are concerned
To me, and / venture TO say that TO one
thousand out Of every one thousand and
one persons in Virginia. who have ever
heard Of Mr.. Conway at all. he is simply
a contemporary author, who has Won
distinction as London correspondent
and notoriety as a writer. who, II not ex-
actly atheistical is certainly not very
orthodox. Not even his warmest admir-
ers hold him up as an accurate and re-
/ liable historian. Mr.. COnway's political
and religious opinions are nothing TO me.
l claim most emphatically, however. that
| when he enters the field Of Virginia his
/ tory. writes a book on that subject and
copy finds its way into our State liz
/ brary, as is the case in the instance OF
the "Barons of the PotomacS and Rap
pahannock," he has no right whatever, on
any score Of private or literary morals TO
claim exemption from criticism for
! his volume on the ground that
J it was printed for private cir
culation. As a part of the collection
Of books in our state Library. it is public
property in every sense Of the word. and
if Its pages are marred by serious errors.
it is the duty of the Virginia Magazine Of
History, which is devoted to the pubi-
cation of matter relating TO the history
! of Virginia, to correct those errors. as
the book is passing daily from hand 10
hand
What is the language. proceeding from
me as the editor Of this magazine, Of
! which Mr.. Conway complains in the
! The Times as reinfOrmecent of the
attack" Of his critic? quote them YER
batim. even retaining the heinous omis-
| sion of the letter * from the spelling or
the Potomac objection To- which on Mr..
| Conway's part is a mere puerility), an
error by the way, If error it can be called
which The Times also falls into in its
headlines to Mr.. Conway's letter. thus
depriving it, like myself, OF the right to
be known hereafter as IAN apostle OF
accuracy" I'm the October number OF
the Magazine, there appeared a review Of
Mr.. Moncure ID. Conways interesting
work (The Barons Of the Potomack and
the Rappahannock published for the
| Grolier Club Of New York. a copy OF
which is now in the State Library of
| Virginia. We regretted very sincerely to
! discover in this volume a great number
! or important errors, and also 10 observe
the tone Of eXaggeration In which il
was pitched. We considered II to be our
duty TO point out these errors. and 10
/ deprecate this tone at the very time that
we appreciated very fully the kind feel
| ing for his native State, Virginia, which
the author exhibited and also the large
amount of valuable information which
| the volume contained. No one has more
at heart than ourselves all that will pro-
! mote the true fame Of Virginia. but We
believe that its past history. so full of
| celebrated figures and memorable
achievements. should be studied with the
most painstaking and impartial exact
| ness. The reputation OF Virginia will
rise and not decline under this course
OF historical treatment. AS far, therefore
as the influence of this magazine extends.
1t Will be used persistently and firmly to
encourage a spirit Of research in the
State which is not TO he frightened by
any obstacle or wearied by any labor.
which will not permit itself 10 be con-
tented until 1t had examined and weighed
I the priceless original materials upon
! which true history of Virginia can
! alone be based, and which i'm every IN
stance, will reject vague traditions as
untrustworthy evidence. unless supported
by actual proof. The review OF Mr.. Con-
| way volume was written by Nir-
| gilman, who has been making for many
| years an examination Of the records in
our County Courts and State Library.
and whose knowledge Of our Colonial
History In Its most obscure phases. So
cldl and economic. Is equllled by fey
| ana surpassed by none, and who Yields