No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2012
The authenticity of the Paston Letters having been seriously impugned, it is a duty to give any explanation on so important a question. I would, therefore, beg to state some circumstances which happen to be particularly within my own knowledge.
1 On further consideration, I incline to think that Mr. Dalton made an exact copy or literal transcript of the ancient letters (that copy printed on the left hand), and that Sir John Fenn translated them into modern language (that copy printed on the right hand). Mr. Dalton's manuscript notes were made on the printed copies of the first two volumes, and as to vols. 3 and 4,1 believe his comments are on Sir John's translation of the literal copy (which Mr. Dalton had made, and which he refers to generally as the original—being, as he believed, exactly the same as the original), and that these notes were made, as dated, a year before vols. 3 and 4 were published. The observation in Mr. Dalton's note respecting his interview with Sir Walter Trevelyan, in which he mentions Sir John Fenn's copies from the originals, means, I believe, Sir John's translated copies.