Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:21:42.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

III.—Remarks on the Authenticity of the Paston Letters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2012

Get access

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1867

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.