Another Coincidence
 

Recently, I purchased an 1817 copy (1st printing was 1809)
of *Reliques of Robert Burns* , which I had mentioned in an
earlier post about the Scottish version of English. Today,
I finally decided to shelve it without, for the time being,
doing the repair work that is needed on the binding. (I
have a table full of books claiming priority.) So, I placed
it on top of the other Burns books, and proceeded to look
along the shelf to see what could be moved to stand it next
to its relatives. My eye lit upon two volumes entitled
*Select Reviews*. I could not clearly remember what that
was, so I pulled out the first of the two volumes and opened
it directly to a review of *Reliques of Robert Burns* from
the Edinburgh Review (1809), a review I will note that ran
14 double columned pages of about 9 point type. What are
the odds of that?

I should note that I arrange my books by date of birth of
the author so that they run chronologically. Books such as
*Select Reviews* are placed roughly around the time of
publication of books nearby, in this case, 1809 - 1814.

This is the second time this year I have had such an
occurrence. A while back I bought a copy of Hallam's
*Constitutional History of England*. Research on the
internet indicated that Macaulay wrote a comprehensive
review of the work. So the following weekend I happened
upon a then contemporary copy of Macaulay's Essays
(beautifully leather bound with gilt designs and edges) and
the first thing I opened to was his review of Hallam, which
reached to some 50 or more pages.

One final note. Book reviews in the 19th century bear
little resemblance to the meager comments forced onto a
single page of the New York Times Book Review Section. We
have lost so much.

--
Francis A. Miniter

In dem Lande der Pygmäen
gibt es keine Uniformen,
weder Abzeichen, noch irgend welche Normen,
Und Soldaten sind dort nicht zu sehen.

Siegfried von Vegesack, "Es gibt keine Uniformen"
from In dem Lande der Pygmäen

Another Coincidence
 

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
Recently, I purchased an 1817 copy (1st printing was 1809) of *Reliques
of Robert Burns* , which I had mentioned in an earlier post about the
Scottish version of English. Today, I finally decided to shelve it
without, for the time being, doing the repair work that is needed on the
binding. (I have a table full of books claiming priority.) So, I
placed it on top of the other Burns books, and proceeded to look along
the shelf to see what could be moved to stand it next to its relatives.
My eye lit upon two volumes entitled *Select Reviews*. I could not
clearly remember what that was, so I pulled out the first of the two
volumes and opened it directly to a review of *Reliques of Robert Burns*
from the Edinburgh Review (1809), a review I will note that ran 14
double columned pages of about 9 point type. What are the odds of that?

I should note that I arrange my books by date of birth of the author so
that they run chronologically. Books such as *Select Reviews* are
placed roughly around the time of publication of books nearby, in this
case, 1809 - 1814.

This is the second time this year I have had such an occurrence. A
while back I bought a copy of Hallam's *Constitutional History of
England*. Research on the internet indicated that Macaulay wrote a
comprehensive review of the work. So the following weekend I happened
upon a then contemporary copy of Macaulay's Essays (beautifully leather
bound with gilt designs and edges) and the first thing I opened to was
his review of Hallam, which reached to some 50 or more pages.

One final note. Book reviews in the 19th century bear little
resemblance to the meager comments forced onto a single page of the New
York Times Book Review Section. We have lost so much.

Amazing coincidences! I love it!

--
Jean B.