The New York Herald Newspaper, August 29, 1872, Page 3

r « S FAC-SIMILE «: Rerrcs Dreucosks - Lee ee Coweeperteat- ‘OF THE STANLEY-NOE LETTERS. 0. Unprare- hunt, bur onl Cite arnnuo , “ 43 § ' & 9 Ww wv SV peng pews Oy Oarienthie, J ome Hu “rye , Souk peo Pans € Roms geld Wh? Hy, & mae’ i i | | i ! i i | ' i \ ( i { { i | wre Cote, Teor an pipet et , ‘white in tue Livingstone letter a cireu- lar sweep is given to the pen, The general uniformity and clearness of the Livingstone letter also mark broadly the ‘anlikeness to the other, which is with- out fixed style, where the letters are formed at all angles, and are widely different in relative lengths and breadths. To enter into a minute analysis of the letters to exhibit their difference would be much Iike writing an essay to prove that the moon is essentially unlike a cheese. There are some points, how- ever, the peculiarities born of a lifetime, io rapid formation of letters that may be briefly alluded to, Informing such letters as “b” and “f’ the Doctor always begins by making a hook bend- ing upwards and to the right, while “Henry” simply uses a downward stroke, In the portions of letters below the line in the Livingstone letter there LIVINGSTONE 0R STANLEY Comments Upon a Comparison of Chirographies. DISSIMILIA IN SIMILIBUs. ‘In making 0 critical exammMation and comparison of handwriting, es in criticising @ picture, one fret takes into consideration the general effect and spirit of the work executed. Details are passed by ceded, and the tout is only sought to grasped. A work of bas generally certain elements charaeteristic of the artist in a broader sense than are the pecullarities af touch, color or drawing. The individuality of the man makes itself apparent first im the gen- eral resuit, Gnd not till afterwards do we jook for the manipulation of means by which ‘that result is reached. If this is true of the artist tig more remarkably characteristic of the hand- ‘writing of men. All who write much stamp the tmpress of their individuality not alone in the sepa- rate characters as they are formed, but on the en- tire broad page agit ies spread before them. So geology opens out the leaves of the world’s history ‘oefore the eye, that he whe has mastered the mystery of nature's trac- ings may unhesita' read her héstory, |. $0 phystegnomy, physiology and phrenology inc!- ‘cate character broadly. It is onty when we place oo much reliance on details that we are led ‘2 A carelessly written manuscript tells its own story ef authorsnip, so that not 8 few have lived who Contd readily determine the manmer of man their corresporfaent might be by simply glancing at his Open letter in their hand. the steps are simple. There are bread principles to Commence with, and it only requires perseverance to proceed. There are very few who cannot tell the fide handwriting of a mam from that of a woman. and still fewer who cannot discern sex in the large running Hand oti taught in some fashionable boarding schools. A strong men’s handwriting will contain vigor and s weak man’s will lack that element. A retiring, timid man will write in small characters (generally @ round hand if he be @ good penman), and will never use the bold, angular style, or imitate the signa- ture of John Han A man whore character 18 definitely formed wil*ave a samences in his writ- ing, or if &e writes two or more “hands” in each variety of style, which iast is often moaified by the uses to which his writing Is pat. A minister of the Gospel, for instance, will very frequently indeed write ja the style of the letter pubHehed herewith to-day and signed David Livingstone, but very in" frequently will he write im the style of “Henry.” The round, clear characters used in the Livingstone let- ter are very different indeed from the semt-Gotbic ones of the Stanley epistie. The former are of about equal diameter when measured in either a horizon- tal or @ perpendicular direction, and the inter- stices are. very clear and open, while the heaviness Of the Jine is the same at all points, Im the letter from “Henry” very few of the “e's” can be dis- tinguished from “1's,” and exhibit no opening in the centro, In the original of the letter from “Henry” too, the upper portion of the letters and the up strokes are not af the same heavy character as the lower portions and the down strokes, as it would appear from the printed copy. “Henry” tends always towards clongating his characters, 18 the same radical difference of spaces im the one case and only density in the other. And #0 on through every point in the construction of each character, which invariably marks a diver- gence, till one can only wonder that even a crazed man could see in these two specimens a fractional point in common, A Caustic Criticism. To THe Epiror oF THE HEeRxaLp:— I have been carefully looking at the Livingstone- Stanley fac-similes published in the Sun of to-day; and, with some little experience in chirography, notwithstanding the assertion that they are simi- Jar in appearance, must confess my inability to dis- cover any resemblance whatever. There are #0 many characteristic points of difference that it is only necessary to call attention to afew. In the Stanley letters notice the capital L, the final y's, the presence of commas, the invariable stroke to the right in crossing (when they are crossed at the absence of tying the prondun to the follow- ing word, the tnvartable straight stroke of thet when commencing word; the up-stroke of the f, which never fornm a hook; the correet spelling, &c, Notice the same points in the Livingstone letter, the regular curl to the left ofpy’s, g's, the hooking of the fs, the tying of words, the flourish on the word “that,” with many others that suggest them- selves in every line, If Mr. Stanley had written the Livingstone letters he would have been apt to spell correctly at leass, and would not have written perceive ‘‘percieve,”” or woful “woeful.” Following his professional Practice he would not have said, “baMed worried defeated and forced to return” without patting ip @ comma occasionally. T could point out dozens of dissimilarities were it necessary. In fact, I think it is dimcult to find any resemblance unless it be the size of the writing, and even here the spacing and general arrange- ment are totally unlike. 1, for one, do not feel at all impressed with the belief that one hand wrote both letters, FIAT JUSTITIA, New Yorx, August 28, 1872, Authenticity of the Livingstone Letters. [From the New York Daily Witness of yesterday.) We see there are still some doubters of the au- thenticity of Dr. Livingstene’s letters and of the stories of his having a brother in Ontario, &c. For the satisfaction of all such we may state that the editor of this paper has been personally acquainted with Dr. Liviagstone’s brother in Canada for up- ward of twenty years, and has more than once received from him letters of Dr. Livingstone, addressed to him, giving interesting accounts of his discoveries in Africa, for publication in the Montreal Witne: nd that the letter he recently sent to the Glove (Toronto) could not be an im- posture. Furthermore, 1am acquainted with Dr. Livingstone’s handwriting and signature, and the Jac-simile published in the HeRa.D of one of his letters Is unquestionably the Doctor's handwriting. JOHN DOUGALL, Who Is the Impostor? ‘(From the New York Evening Mail of yesterday.) The question of the genuineness of the Living- stone letters seems to be pretty nearly at rest in England, where Stamiey is dined daily and treated with the utraest. consideration by no end of scien- tifle and noble folk. But on this side of the water the controversy scems far from settled. This Morning the Sun publishes side by side sac-simites’ Of two letters—one purporting to be written by Stamley and the other purporting to be writ ten by Livingstone. There is an unden! similarity between the two—so much so that the Sun assumes that the same hand must have writtem both. We do not, however, recognize so clear a case of identity in the handwriting. Morcover, the let which purports to have been written by Stank was dated the Ist of January, 186%. 181% concelv-} able that at that time, over four years ago and before it entered Into Mr. Bennett's head to set an expedition after Livingstone, Stanley shou! have begun to imitate Livingstonc's ienertine§ It is notorious that the assumed Livingstone le! have been carefully cxaminea by members of tha Doctor’ family, by od friends, sby experta im the Foreign Office and by Earl Gi ifle and other. eminent officials. Undoultediy they have scrutinized by thousands, After al) this, the di cussion of their genulnencas has almost whol ceased in England. lu Now what inference ts to be drawn from th similarity between the assumed letter of Stanie; and that of Livingstone, published in the Sun Did Stanley begin to imitate Livingstone’s style of writing over four years ago from @ prophetic ins, stinct that the Henatp would send out an expedi« tion after Livingstone; that he would be put im charge of it, and that he might win a short-lived "glory by pretending to furnish letters from Livings stone? It is dhly necessary vo state such a propor altion. } Now this assumed letter of Stanley's (s add: to a Lewis Il. Noe, a hitherto anknown youth Long Island, who charges Staniey with all manne: of atrocities, in some of which he, Noe, admits he was a participant, Among other things Nog acknowledges that he was @ deserter from thé army and a perjurer, and that ho was the of Stanley in a Jawicss expedition. He now wan! to discredit bis old companion and brings forth letter, dated January 1, 1868, to prove that handwriting ef Stanley at that time was exact like that of Livingstone now—for thas is what ii amounts to in the end. ‘ The result of this inconceivable Liander must to convince every one that Noe is an impostor that he has imitated the handwriting of the Lit stone letter which was lithographed for the and produced the letter which Is lithograp! for the Sun, The latter paver is unquestionably