The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-04-01
MIR. NJ. D. C0NWAY'S BOOK.
HxTONs OF THE POTOMAC AND THE
RAPPAHxxNOCK.
The Author Replies to an AnonyD ous
Critic and Maintains the Accuracy
Of uis Statements.
10 the Editor Of the Virginia Magazine


zine FOR January, renders a reJoinder
necessary.
In "a preliminary note you assert, which
IS easier than TO prove, that you dis
covered important errors In my IN
teresting work-'Thc Barons OF the Poto-
mac and the Rappahann0ck.' published
for the Grolier Club. In passing, l may
roint out, as we are talking OF errors,
that there are three In this clause. just
quoted from your opening sentence. Strike
but The before "Barons,' add a *
10 Potomac" substitute printed" for
published" and your clause will be cor
rect. My reviewer also made two mis-
takes in the title. placed at the head
OF his review. these being followed by so
many erroneous page references and other
crrata mot noticed in my repiy)' that l
at first supposed he must have written
his article on garbled extracts sent him
by a clumsy copyist II appears droll
that two apostles OF eXactness, while
reading me a lecture on accuracy. cannot
give accurately the title Of my book, when
il is before their eyes.
No. the book IS not published not one
OF the 363 copies ia existence can, pc
neve. be purchased; and IT is because inc
general public is thus unable TO cheek
INTERPRETATIONS OF It's contents thdl
the ungrateful task devolves upon its
author And ] may add. that my thirty
seven wears Of authorship have brought
me no previous experience Of misrepresen-
fation so gross as that now met with In a
periodical OF my native State on the
occasion OF my bringing 10 light large
number OF newly discovered manuscripts
rejecting honor as well as light on the
history OF Virginia.
My anonymous assailant disclaims In
furious motives, but In what spirit mas
he approached the work he processes TO
review? He began with an insinuation
against the trustworthiness OF all OF my
historical writings. Those writings have
been largely reviewed in America ana
England without disproof Of any state
ments in them. My Edmund Randolph
was carefully reviewed by Mr. Writ Hen
~ Or. yelling, Judge Chamberlain and
other eminent writer's without any hint
Of untrustworthiness. An unsupported
sweeping insinUation against a man 5
works by a writer Sinking responsibility
IS 40 malevolent as an anonymous in
sinuation against personal character. The
reviewers animus is also shown by his
careful suppression Of the purpose ana
character OF the volume. He takes his
specincatOns against my historical works
from a work which is not historical. al
though there is some little history. mainly
family history, in it. Reviewing a book
inaccessible to the general public, Ne
tina. there f. anything of value in it, or
that II is not a regular history Yet the
main purpose of this volume is 10 set
forth some forty unpublished letters and
manuscripts, written by eminent Nir-
ginans OF the colonial period, full Of in
teresting personal details and casting
light on the events OF their time. There
are letters from the Washingtons and
their friends in England, which, along
IN lofa mr.
Slaughter, containing discoveries he never
published, entirely altar the condition Of
knowledge concerning the Washingtons.
There are also letters OF the Lewses.
FairfaNes and Carriers, others written by
Colonel William Fitzhugh, George Mason
in his youth. Dinwiddie, Richard Bland
Lawrence Butler. and others. all of the
greatest interest, such as IT might be sup
posed any historical magazine would well
come with JOY. OF these new-found
treasures the reviewer gives no hint he
fastens on me. whose part Of the work
consists Of colonial sketches, portraitures,
anecdotes. legends. traditions, folk lore.
meant TO explain illusions in the letters,
and surrounded these ancient figures with
suitable scenery. So far as the substance
az the book Is concerned, the reviewers
article seems much as II a dramatic
critic, present at a performance by great
actors. should be so absorbed with the
scenery and properties as to omit all no.
tice OF the play and the actors.
In a volume dealing with thousands OF
Incidents and details, In an obscure pc
rod, some mistakes were inevitable, but
this reviewers resolution that my book
should be worthless and erroneous seems
SO strong that / cannot trust his correc-
tons even where. AT this distance from
my library. i cannot test them thorough
ly. He has been compelled TO retract
some OF his accusations, and pass by
others without defence, thosgh they We're
made az positively as those in which he
persists. Your readers can judge of the
general trustworthiness OF a prosecutor
who can commit such errors while franz
ing an indictment for errors But as to
the few instances In which. as | have ad-
mitted, he may be correct, they no more
affect the purpose and character OF the
book than the fifteen mistakes in your
october number. pointed out by yourself
To January. affect the character of your
MAGAZINE. l would rather have thou
SAND such mistakes. whether of igno-
rance or accident. discovered in any book
Of mine than one instance Of record
altered or any man misrepresented.
The reviewer does not appear TO under
stand the gravity of the case. He repre-
sents me as complaining that his quota
lions from me "were not at length I
that he had altered. interpolated. and
garbled quotations. lie does not seem TO
know the fundamental law Of literary
ethics thet whenever quotation marks
are used by a reviewer, he is signing
another mans name 10 every word be-
tween those marks. On page SIS OF the
Magazine, l point out an instance in
which he has substituted words Of his
own for mine. between quotation-marks,
and he seems to treat IL as a joke The
words are not. in that instance, OF much
Though Of some) Importance, but in
principle ii seems much like altering a
cheque.
u Is also fundamental law that no
words OF writer quoted must be omit
ted. between quotation marks. unless with
Indication Of such omission. In the first
paragraph. page 35l january. there is
quotation purporting to be from my
book. with asterisks indicating three
omissions But in this case these as
terisks are fraudulent they suggest that
the reviewer is honestly indicating all
omission, whereas there are In the same
quotation, six other omissions. at differ
ent places, without any indications what
ever. And whereas the omissions indi-
Gated by asterisks are Of comparatively
little Importance. two at least Of the
unndcated omissions seriously alter my
meaning.