EXTRAORDINARY LITERARY FORGERIES. [From "Bell's Weekly Messenger."]

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 671, 18 September 1852, Page 4

EXTRAORDINARY LITERARY FORGERIES. [From "Bell's Weekly Messenger."]

Some letters purporting to liave been written by Sbel ey, and published by Mr. Moxon, turn out, with one or two exceptions, to be forgeries. It is proper to sny at once th.it Mr. Moxon has been deceived, and that no gentleman, from the moment of the discovery, could have acted more straightfo/wanlly and promptly than he has done in this transaction. As soon as he was convinced that he had been the means— t?ie innocent means — of giving to the public a false article, he did his best to repair his mistake. He lias suppressed the book, and Las called in the copies deliveied to the trade The discovery was made in quite an accidental manner. Mr. Moxon had sent a copy of tbe book to Mr. Tennyson. During a visit which Mr. Palgrave was paying to Mr. Tennyson, he dipped into the Shelley volume, and lighted on a letter wiitten from Florence to Godwin, the better half of which he at once lecogniscd as part of an article on Florence, written for the Quai tcrly Revieiu, so far back as 1840, by his father, Sir Francis Palgrave. Pie lost no time in communicating his curious discovery to his father; and Sir Fiance, after comparing the printed letter with the printed article, wrote at once to Mr. Moxon ; informing him that the letter was a ''crib" from an article which he had wiitten for the Quarterly llevieiu. Startled at such intelligence, Mr. Moxon, replied that lie had bought the let'er at a public sale among other lottfis also by Shelley, and that the passage of which Sir Francis claimed the authorship was contained in a letter wiitten by Shelley, carrying upon it the post mark of the period und other wiitten signs which nppalently marked it to be genuine, The Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, was, it may be readily imagined, equally startled with Mr. Moxon at the announcement of such a fact. lie w anted to see the letter. The letter was produced—" ItloolvS genuine"—-" is it not genuine?" " I am the author of that passage, but not the writer of that letter," was the reply of Sir Francis " But may not Sir Francis," it was urged to Mr. Moxon, " have seen this letter in the noble collection of autographs belonging to his father-in-law, Mr. Dawson Turner V — a question which only added a fresh difficulty to the solution sought. In this emergency, Mr. Moxon had recourse to the assistance of a gentleman known to be conversant with autographs- The letters were placed in his hands, with a lequest that he would spnre no pains to ascertain the truth about them — and with this information to guide him — tlitt they had been shown to some Post Office clerks at theGeneial Post Oflice, who, 4 * to the best of their belief," pronounced them to be genuine. The first step taken after this was, to compare tbe post-marks with Byron's letters to Mr. Murray posted from the tame cities in the same month and year, and to the same city — London. Here they failed — and in this way. Where "Ravenna" on a genuine letter was in a small sharp type— in the Shelley letter it was in a large uncertain type — and in the letterß from Venice the post-mark of the city of Palaces was stamped in an Italic, and not as in the Shelley specimens in a Roman letter. These were strong facts— but then the dates agieed with Shelley's sojourn at the several places — the seals weie correct. The hand-writing was marvellously. Shelley like; no hesitation about it — a fiee accustomed band. " Are they not genuine V From whom did Mr. Moxon buy these letters 1 They were bought at Sotbeby and Wilkinson's, at large prices. From whom did Messrs. Sotheby and Wilkinson receive them for sale? " We bad them from Mr. White, tbe bookseller in Pnll Mall, over against the Reform Club." Oft" runs the gentleman-detective. " From whom did jou, Mr. White, obtain these letters?" — " I bought them of two women — I believed them to be genuine, and L paid large prices for them in that belief." Such are the words supposed to have been spoken by Mr. White. '1 he two women would appear to have been like the man in a clergyman's band, but with a lawyer's gown, who brought Pope's letters to Curll. It would be impolitic at ibis stage of an important inquiry to publish the whole of the particulars placed at our service in elucidation of the forgery of these letters. It is proper, however, to say thus eaily that there has been, of late years, as we are assured, a most systematic and wholesale forgery of letters, purporting to be writ ten by Byion, Shelley, and Keats— that thepe forgeries carry upon them such maiks of genuineness as have deceived the entire body of London collectors — that they are executed with a skill to which the forgeries of Chatterton and Ireland can lay no claim— that they have bold at public auctions, and by the bands of booksellers, to collectors of experience and rank — and that the imposition has extended to a large collection of books bearing not only the signature of Lord Byron, hut notes by him in many of their pages — the matter of the letters being selected with a tho ougb knowledge of Byron's life and feelings, and the whole of the books chosen with the minutest knowledge of his tastes and peculiarities. But the marvel of the forgery is not yet told. At the same sale at which Mr. Moxon bought the Shelley letters were catalogued for sale a seiies of (unpub'ished) letters from Shelley to his wife, revealing the innermost secrets of his beait and containing facts, not wholly dishonourable facts to a father's memoiy, but such ns a son would wit.l) to conceal. Thes-e lelteia wk>re bought in by the son of Shelley.tbepresentSirPercy Shelley — and aro now proved, are told, to be forgeries. To impose on the cieduhty of a collector is a minor offence compaied with the ciinie of forging evidence against the dead, and still minor us in one instance ugaiust the fidelity of a woman. Our readers will remerabei that it is our practice to repoit the principal autograph sales, und to offer, when oppoitunity occuis, exliacts from letters and documents of Instoucal or biographical importance. Now, some of the documents and letters to which we have called attention have since, thiou<;h our publicity, undeigone (he severu trial of Sir Frederick Maddens cniicnl judgment, and have found n fitting place on the

shelves of the British Museum. We have, bow-ever, we fear, given additional publicity to some of these ur.doubted Shelley and Byron forgeries ; «nd if our readers will turn to our account of the stile, at I'uttick and Simpson's of Mr. Iludge's collection of autographs {Athen. No. 1101, p. 1898], they will find extracts ofletieis from Shelley to Byron and fiom Byion to Shelley (the former e«r>eciall) ), the presumed original of which we I'ave now no doubt weie forgeries Shelley's letter containing an a.-serlicn against the fidelity of "Harnet," winch sold for £6 6s.— and which excited, even then our indignant protest, although we had no re<ibon to douht its genuineness — was of this sort. The forgery of Chattel ton injured no one but an imaginary priest, — ihe forgery of Ireland made a great poel seem to write wort.ethan Settle could luve unlt.^n, but this forgey blacKens the character of a great man, and worse still, traduces female virtue. Mr. Moxon is not the only publisher taken in. Mr. Murray has been a heavy sufferer, though not to thr->-ame extent. Mr. Maxon has printed his Shelley purchases ; — Mr. Muiray — wise through Mr. MoxonV example-^*// not publish bia 13j ron acquisitions.— Jthcnaum.