named, particularly Hogarth's labours, or family pictures, and adds: "We are very much afraid Mr. M's prints on this subject have been made up memoriter." The above sentence must be considered by every impartial person as perfectly unjustifiable, and insulting to my moral character. This instance sufficiently proves that I am personally unknown to the Reviewer, or he would also have known deceit and baseness form no part of my composition. It now remains for me to give my authorities for the sketches of dress, which are full as authentic as any the Reviewer has mentioned; and to his surprize and regret he will learn that the very Hogarth he blames me for neglecting is one of them. Dress 1690-1715, is from a print published immediately after the coronation of William and Mary representing that event, offered to the world by one of the Heralds at Arms. Dress 1721 is from a wooden cut in a newspaper exhibiting the young beau of the day. Dress 1735 is three figures grouped from Hogarth's plates. Dress 1738 is the old maid in Coventgarden from Hogarth, the position of the figure altered. Dress 1745 from Hogarth, the attitudes different. Dress 1752, attitudes altered from a large print of Vauxhall-gardens. Dress 1766 from Rooker's view of Covent-garden Church. Dress 1773 from a Mezzotinto, figures altered. Dress 1779 the hint taken from Miss Burney's Evelina. Dress 1785 from a large Aquatinta of the interior of the Pantheon, Oxford-street, figures newly grouped. The two last the Reviewer knows to be correct.-In concluding this subject, I cannot do better than quote the words of the Reviewer Reviewer of my work in the European Magazine før June 1808. Speaking of the Anecdotes of Dress, he could not omit noticing "a Chapter" that "has in a manner fixed these fleeting meteors of public absurdity, by a series of prints, that at once serve as embellishments and elucidations of the work."-" These prints we really wish our readers could see, because they are, in many instances, extremely curious, and also because, on subjects of this nature, an artist with a few strokes of his pencil can convey ideas in a much stronger manner to the mind than an author in pages of laboured description." As I have candidly given the reader all that the preceding Reviewers have said against me, he will indulge me in adding a few words from those who praise me. Were all Reviews formed on the liberal plan which distinguishes the article concerning my Anecdotes in the European Magazine, every author must be gratified with the prospect of having his work fairly analysed, and receiving explanatory notices for a future edition, and rejoice that Reviews are published. In proceeding through the contents of my book this worthy critic has given explanations of such passages as his knowledge of London enabled him to illustrate, which I have inserted in the form of notes in their proper places in the present edition; and in this pursuit he has, to his great credit, never once indulged in captious exceptions against particular sentences, or spoken of every thing omitted and nothing inserted. The conclusion is extremely grateful to my feelings: "When we consider the labour which Mr. M. M. must have undergone in collecting such a variety of materials from such a number of volumes, pamphlets, and papers, as he must have perused (some of which are no longer accessible but to the curious) we are of opinion that he deserves great praise for his industry. As a body of information respecting the morals, the manners, the foibles, and follies of our ancestors, we think this work very useful; as a book of reference, still more so. As an amusement, therefore, to the idle, and an assistant to the industrious readers, we unequivocally recommend it to the publick." It may, perhaps, be said this praise is venal; on the contrary, I most solemnly declare I know neither my bitter Censors nor my Panegyrists. As some other Reviews have praised the work, I shall refer the reader to the Gentleman's Magazine, the Annual Review, &c. May 1809. J. P. MALCOLM. |