Replies to Minor Queries.
Cooper's Miniatures of Cromwell (Vol. iv., p. 368.; Vol. v., pp. 17. 92. 189. 234. 255.).
—Eight years ago I saw, at the house of my friend, A. Macdonald, Esq., since deceased, but then living in Hyde Park Square, three miniatures, which were said to be by Cooper, of Cromwell and his two daughters. The miniatures of the women were, I thought, stiff and harsh; but that of their father (of which only the head was finished) appeared to me to be the finest painting of the kind that I ever saw. I examined it through a strong magnifying glass, when the face exhibited all the truth and force of a portrait. A high value was set upon it; but I do not know whether it was sold, or where it is.
ALFRED GATTY.
[We take this opportunity of stating that we have availed ourself of General Fox's invitation, and examined the beautiful miniature of Cromwell, described by him in our Number for the 6th instant, and so considerately left by him at Colnaghi's, for the inspection of all who are interested in the subject. The General having placed beside it the volume of Carlyle's Cromwell, containing the engraving from Cooper's miniature in the possession of Archdeacon Berners, we are bound to agree with him that the Archdeacon's may be "better painted;" but General Fox may certainly congratulate himself upon being the possessor of a work of very high art, as well as of great historical interest; and one which we are extremely pleased to have had the opportunity of examining. It will, we believe, remain on view until the 31st.]
The Vellum-bound Junius (Vol. iii., p. 262.).
—Your correspondent MR. HAGGARD tells us, that from the time he read the private correspondence between Junius and Woodfall he has examined all book catalogues that came in his way, in the hope of finding a copy, or the copy, "bound in vellum"—so bound by Woodfall, for and at the express desire of Junius. Of course the edition so bound was "the author's edition," as Junius calls it, the edition of 1772, printed by H. J. Woodfall. At last, says MR. HAGGARD, "the long-wished-for object appeared at the Stowe sale;" but though, he bid eight pounds, he was not so fortunate as to obtain it. Thus far all is simple and clear enough. But then MR. HAGGARD subsequently informs us (Vol. iii., p. 307.) that the reason of his "being so desirous to procure this copy" was, because it was "not only bound in vellum, but was printed on that article"—that is, as I understand it, because it was not the copy bound by Woodfall for Junius. I am at a loss to reconcile these statements. However, as I observe by the periodicals that MR. HAGGARD'S first statement is getting into circulation, and that it now assumes this form—that the vellum-bound copy of Junius presented by Woodfall to Junius was sold at the Stowe sale, I think it right to state, that the Stowe copy, printed on and bound in vellum, was, as I am informed on good authority, not the edition of 1772—not a Woodfall edition at all—but the common illustrated edition, printed more than thirty years after, by Bensley, for Vernor and Hood.
V. B. J.
Sept (Vol. v., p. 277.).
—Dr. Ogilvie's derivation is absurdly far-fetched. Sept is notoriously from the Latin septus or septum, inclosed, an inclosure, and it is applied to one kindred or family living in or round the inclosure in which they herded their cattle. See Spenser's Ireland; see also Cole's Dictionary: