The evening times., 1900-04-30
THE MANUSCRIPT A CUPY
Disappointment of ] PierpOnt Nor
gan in a Recent Purchase.
'sThe school for Scandal, Bought Mt
the DAILY Sale Was Not the OriGi-
nal In sheridan's HandyyritinR-A
Mistake Made by the CataiOEuer.
j. o. Wright-How Ii Happened.

NEW YORK, AnrI 3O-J. Pierpont Nor
T.n paid SI,750 at the sale of Augustin
b-ly's collections for a manuscript of
Sheridan's School for Scandal" 1t was
No. 9G5S of the catalogue, and was describ-
ed there as the original manuscript in
the handwriting of Sheridan
1t is a copy of the original manuscript.
1t is not in the handwriting of Sheridan.
Mr. Morgan's photographed interest in
the work was not excited only by regard
for its value as the autograph Of a master
piece of English literature. He knew that
the School for Scandal has its integral
text only in the original manuscript.
All the printed editions made on the
model Of the first, have faults of omission
and of commission. Fraser Rae promised
long ago to publish the text of the original
manuscripts. He has not yet kept his
promise. In paying $3.50 for No. 3O5S of
the Augustin Daily catalogue Mr.. Morgan
had the idea OF rendering accessible to
students other than Fraser Rae the task
That is yet undone.
The manuscript that Mr. Morgan has
bought disappoints him therefore twice
1t is not an autograph and il is not a text
Tor an edition of the School for Scandal"
in which photographers may have conf
denee. The original manuscript of the
School for Scandal is the property Of
the authors great-grandson. AIgernon
Sheridan. and is in his library at Tramp
ton Court, in England.
George d. Smith says in the preface to
the catalogue Ot the Daily books that ne
bought AT the auction and offers for sale
separately: Il advised at least one Gus
toner not 10 bid OF the School for Scan
daF manuscript and congratulated another.
who was the under bidder, upon his not
becoming the purchaser. The offered copy
Of the School for Scandal. l have good
authority for saying, was probably writ
ten by the prOmpter OF the theatre at
which it was produced, and his handwrit-
ing bore about as much resemblance to
Sheridan's as does General Washingtons
to my own
The fault in the description of No. 3O5s
OF the Augustin DAILY catalogue is not at
tributed TO him by the book lovers. but 10
the cataloguer, J. o. Wright
That and other errors were not deliber-
ate. They overrated certain objects
but they underrated others. Gerald Hon
thorst's portrait of Ben JOnson was de-
scribed as ''the original from which all
subsequent portraits have been copied."
Honthorst portrait an importance that it
has not The portrait al Knole, in England.
that Lord Sacxville lent TO the Tudor Ex-
hibition in 1870, is the original portrait of
Jonson- The cataloguer's error here was
In favor of the sale; but he made an er-
ror in favor CT the buyer In describing a
collection of portraits OF Shakespeare as
LACKING the Droeshout, the most valuable
Of the portraits of Shakespeare. The
Droeshout portrait of Shakespeare is In the
collection.
Mr.. Wright edited works of Ruskin MANY
years ago, with the amazing note that the
necessity TO edit them was 10 correct their
faults of English. The London newspa-
pers that have criticised adversely his cat.
alogue OF the DAILY sale were right in crit
icising 1t. but they were wrong in
ascribing its faults to the American edu-
cation of the catalogue. j. o. Wright is
an Englishman. educated in England.
No one disputes his integrity as a man
OF business But the error OF cataloguirg
as an original manuscript a copy in manu.
script Of Sheridan's school for Scandal
Nas all the literary gravity of excisiug
u Ruskin faults of English.