[Bibliographical Note.-These two letters first appeared in the Times of January 7, 1847, and December 29, 1852.

The first letter was reprinted, with comments by “Verax,” in pp. 44-58 of The Abuses of the National Gallery, etc. etc., by Verax, 1847.

Both letters were reprinted in Arrows of the Chace, 1880, vol. i. pp. 53- 66, and 67-77. The numbering of the paragraphs is introduced in the present edition.

There is also a reprint of them, bearing the date 1852, of which no mention is made in Shepherd’s Bibliography (1881), though it appears in that edited by T. J. Wise in 1889. The title-page is:-

The National Gallery. | Two Letters | to the Editor of the Times | By | The Author of “Modern Painters.” | London: | 1852.

Octavo, pp. 16. The imprint at the foot of p. 16 reads: “London: Printed by Stewart and Murray, Old Bailey.” Issued stitched and without wrappers.

That this reprint belongs to a much later date than 1852 is proved by a collation of the Variæ Lectiones. Thus in line 5 of § 3, “Dust an inch thick accumulated upon the frames” is the reading in Ruskin’s MS. and in the Times. In Arrows of the Chace (1880) the word is panes, an obvious misprint, for one of Ruskin’s grievances was that at this time the pictures were not glazed. Yet panes is the word in the reprint which professes to be of the year 1852. So, again, in § 2, line 19, the dash (-) after “old canvass,” which does not appear in the Times, was introduced in Arrows of the Chace, and reappears in the reprint. In § 4, line 9, a superfluous comma after “warned” figures in both reprints. In § 7, line 2, a comma in the original becomes a semicolon in both reprints; as also in line 13. In line 26, the comma after “brilliancy” is inserted in the present edition. In § 8, line 9, a comma in the original is changed into a semicolon in both reprints (here followed); line 22, the comma after “this” disappeared in both reprints; line 32, a superfluous comma after “large” was inserted in both reprints; line 41, the word “only” was similarly inserted, and a comma after “attributable.” In § 9, line 4, the words “the various purchases made in” were omitted in both reprints, and in line 7 “utility” was misprinted “ability” in both. Some other minor variations in punctuation, in which again the alleged reprint of 1852 follows the alterations made in 1880, need not be enumerated; but finally, in § 9, line 38, “or” in the Times was printed “and” in Arrows of the Chace, and this misprint also appears in the reprint of “1852.” It thus follows that the reprint “of extreme scarcity” is what is known in the trade as a “fake,” being an unauthorised reprint from Arrows of the Chace at some date later than 1880.

A collation of the second letter shows a similar result. The reprint of “1852” omits the two footnotes by the author, which appeared as such in the Times; the publisher not perceiving that these notes, unlike others in Arrows of the Chace, were the author’s and not the editor’s. In the first author’s note, last line, “Claudes” in the Times is printed “Claude’s” in both reprints. In § 2, line 9, “curators” is printed with a capital C in both; line 25, “chill” printed “dirt” in both; and there are again several minor variations in punctuation, which it is unnecessary to enumerate; in all cases the alterations introduced in Arrows of the Chace (1880) appear in the reprint of “1852.”]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]