A German <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/luxury/collectibles/vintage-poster/film" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">movie poster</a> for the film <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/search?query=The%20Third%20Man&amp;tab=objects&amp;sortBy=bsp_dotcom_prod_en" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Third Man</a>.<ul><li>Heinrich Stengel (German, dates unknown).</li><li>London Film.</li><li>Style D.</li><li>Linen backed.</li><li>This work is presented unframed.</li></ul> Exceptionally rare German poster that hardly ever surfaces.

German The Third Man / Der Dritte Mann Movie Poster

Fine Manuscript and Printed Americana

Smith, John The Generall Historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles: with the names of the Adventurers, Planters, and Governours from their first beginning Ano: 1584 to this present 1624. With the Proceedings of Those Several Colonies and the Accidents that befell them in all their Journyes and Discoveries. Also the Maps and Descriptions of all those Countryes, their Commodities, people, Government, Customes, and Religion yet knowne. Divided into Sixe Bookes. London: Printed by J. Dawson and J. Havilland for Michael Sparkes, 1624. Small folio (292 x 181 mm). Engraved title (Burden’s 1st state), 4 engraved maps, comprising ‘Virginia’ (10th state), ‘Ould Virginia’ (Burden’s 4th state), ‘Bermuda’ (Sabin’s 3rd state), ‘New England’ (Sabin-Church-Burden’s 9th state, thus likely inserted from another copy), early manuscript annotations and manicules; The title lightly soiled and toned with some nicks and minor paper repairs at margins, the contents with occasional light soiling, some minor nicks at tears at the edges of a few leaves, a 19th century manuscript note on the added blank leaf after p. 96 relating to the called-for irregularities in pagination, a closed tear in leaf A4, marginal paper repairs to a few leaves (R1, Bb1, Bb2), leaf Dd2 remargined at gutter, the maps generally clean, a few creases, three maps remargined, and with a few expert paper repairs along edges, a complete copy with no losses to the printing. Nineteenth-century polished tan calf, gilt ruled border, edges, and turn-ins, spine with six compartments double-ruled in gilt, gilt armorial supralibros of the Musgrave family to boards, all edges gilt, the binding by “Lewis,” likely London bookbinder Charles Lewis (1786-1836), according to a note recording the purchase of volume and cost of binding on the blank opposite the title; expertly rebacked to style, corners lightly refurbished, the gilt supra libros slightly rubbed, a few faint scuffs and pale stains to boards. "The first sizeable work written in English about the new-found continent… it remained a standard work, the foundation of England's knowledge of America during the early period of colonization" (Printing and the Mind of Man, 124). The rare 1624 first edition, first issue of The Generall Historie, with all the maps. This seminal work, Smith’s magnum opus, is one of the foundational sources for information about the English settlements in America and Bermuda. It was partly compiled from Captain John Smith’s four earlier reports on the colonies in Virginia and New England, all of which are very rare. The text covers his time in Virginia (1606-1609) through his exploration of New England (1610-1617), and it contains Smith’s eyewitness accounts of the founding of the English Colony at Jamestown, as well as his capture by the King of Pamaunkee and subsequent rescue through the intercession of Pocahontas. The Generall Historie is divided into six books: the first contains accounts of the first settlement of Virginia and the subsequent voyages there to 1605; the second is Smith’s description of the country and its Indian inhabitants; the third recounts Smiths voyage and the settlement of Jamestown from 1606 to 1609; the fourth continues Virginia’s history from 1609 to 1623, including the planting of Point Comfort; the fifth is the history of the English settlement in the Bermudas (here called The Summer Isles); and the sixth contains the history of New England from 1614 to 1624. This is an early impression of the text, with “thir” for “their” on the last line of p. 90, but “digression relacing “degression” in the shoulder note on page 119. All copies lack pp. 97-104 (signature O) – according to Henry Stevens, the manuscript was given to two printing houses to be put to type, evidenced by the variations in initial letters and the style of the headings, and there was miscalculation in the number of leaves that the first portion would take up. The maps are among the most important in American history. For example, “Virginia,” which appears in editions of both Purchas’ and Smith’s histories, was the prototype for maps of the area for the next half century (Burden, 213). “New England” was, “the foundation map of New England cartography, the one that gave [New England] its name and the first devoted to the region” (Burden, 187). While some copies include portraits of Princess Frances and Pocahontas, there is disagreement as to whether they are called for – they may have been inserted sometime in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, in line with the book collecting fads of the time. REFERENCES STC 22790; Church 402; European Americana 624/152; Printing and the Mind of Man 124; Sabin 82824 PROVENANCE John Haslewood (gilt armorial bookplate) — his sale, London, Evans in Pall Mall, 16 December 1833 — G. Musgrave (gilt supralibros) — Roy V. Boswell — Gregory S. Javitch — present owner

View 1 of Lot 510: Smith, John | The General History of Virginia... 1624

smith, john | the general history of virginia... 1624

Third edition, fourth printing of the first revised edition of <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/search?query=Mary+Shelley&amp;pfilters.dateRange=upcoming" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mary Shelley</a>'s masterpiece <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/search?query=frankenstein&amp;pfilters.dateRange=past" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Frankenstein</a>, and the last to contain an illustration with the first printing of the engraved frontis and additional engraved title-page dated 1831.<ul><li>Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (English).</li><li>Frederick Schiller (German)[Author of The Ghost-Seer].&nbsp;</li><li>London: Richard Bentley, 1839.</li><li>Bound in the publisher's original blind stamped straight grained brown-maroon cloth.</li></ul> In her introduction, Shelley contextualizes the creation of her tale: "It proved a wet, ungenial summer, and incessant rain often confined us for days to the house. Some volumes of ghost stories, translated from the German into French, fell into our hands… 'We will each write a ghost story,' said Lord Byron; and his proposition was acceded to."

Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus, [bound with] The Ghost-Seer

Adams, John Autograph letter signed (“Your affectionate father John Adams”), 3 pages (246 x 200 mm) on a bifolium of laid paper (watermarked posthorn), Quincy, 12 March 1802, to his son Thomas Boylston Adams, reception and file dockets on verso of second leaf; a few short tears along bottom margins and fore-edge of first leaf, light browning and traces of guard mount on blank verso of second leaf. An extraordinary letter—both academic and affectionate—by the second president to his youngest son, offering Thomas advice on his budding legal career, analyzing common law and natural rights, and reminiscing about his own participation in the development of the Declaration of Independence. In a letter of 3 March 1802, Thomas Boylston Adams consented to his father’s suggestion that he study common law—with the stipulation that John Adams assist him with the task. Thomas also noted his satisfaction with U.S. district judge Alexander Addison’s statement that the common law arose from the laws of nature and dictates of God. In this response, John Adams reassures his son, a fledgling lawyer in Philadelphia, that he should not misconstrue a suggestion made in an earlier letter as his setting a chore or criticizing his practice: “I recd. last night, your Letter of the 3d.—It was far from my thoughts to assign you a task. I meant only to turn your mind to a Subject, which must necessaryly engage much of your contemplations, as long as you live. The Folc Right [i.e, folkright, the aggregate of rules, some unwritten, that express the juridical consciousness of the people at large, a concept dating back to the Anglo-Saxon period], the Peoples Right, the common law, is the natural, Inheritance of Us all. It is our Birth Right.” Adams, far more widely read than any public man of his day, insisted that no statesman could act wisely without a deep understanding of the principles of government and the nature of man (Elkins & McKittrick, The Age of Federalism, p. 530). He recognized, however, that these natural rights could be misinterpreted by the common public, and that a thorough and applied reading of the law would allow those in the profession to become conversant with the principles governing personal and political liberty. As he explained to Thomas, “But precious as it is, and dear as it ought to be to all our hearts, it is likely to be a subject of controversy in this country, untill an examination of it, on a large Scale, Shall be undertaken and accomplished by you or Some other, whose Industry may be equal to the Subject.” Yet Adams deprecates his own ability to help his son in this course of study: “The assistance to be expected from me, must be very Small. I have Scarcely a Law Book of any kind left in my office. It is almost 30 Years since I abandoned my Office and Law Library, and now I have none. My Recollections of the contents of Law Books, you may well Suppose to be very faint confused and incorrect.” (Adams’s involvement in politics and the rigors of the judicial circuit—the radius of his travels comprised more than 200 miles in all directions, taking him as far as Martha's Vineyard and the reaches of Maine—decided him to abandon his practice altogether in the 1770s. Oddly enough, about a fortnight after penning this letter to Thomas, Adams wrote several friends that he was toying with the idea of resurrecting his practice.) But despite this display of modesty, Adams does not stint on advising his son of the pragmatic steps necessary to make a success at the law. “A Lawyer, Should have in his Desk, or Bureau, more pidgeon holes, than a Coiner of constitutions. In these he should deposit, in exact, numerical or Alphebetical order, all the Effects of his Researches into moot Points, as well as the States of his Cases and his notes of Arguments or Authorities relative to them. One of these Apartments in your Scrutoire or your Case or Drawers for writings you may dedicate to the common Law, and fill it up with your disquisitions as Slowly or as Swiftly as you please.— And if it Should be growing upon you at intervals for fifty Years; instead of injuring your mind body or estate, it may be of great benefit to the first and last, at least. Hæc Olim meminisse juvabit.— Indocti discant, et ament meminisse periti. The Plan indeed is vast, and will require a long time: but nothing presses for haste. The United States and the State of Pennsylvania are now within your reach. See what progress you make in ascertaining the common Law in them. You may pursue the Clue when you shall have Seized it, into other States at your Leisure.” The encouraging Latin epigram Adams provides is a hybrid, with the initial phrase taken from the first book of the Aeneid (“Some day, perhaps, remembering even this will be a pleasure”), while the second (“Let the unlearned learn, and let the experienced love to remember”) is a motto traditionally, if erroneously, attributed to Horace that appeared on the title-page of an anthology Adams was then reading, Jean François de La Harpe’s Lycée; ou, Cours de littérature ancienne et modern (16 vols. in 19, Paris, 1799–1805). Despite his earlier claim that his “Recollections of the contents of Law Books [is] very faint confused and incorrect,” John Adams recommends a number of specific texts by classic jurists for Thomas’s study of common law: “Judge Addisons thoughts may be of Use to you: but figures of Spech are not always Science of Law. Passion Politicks and Eloquence Should always be Studied with diffidence and Jealousy in discussions of Laws and Government. Avail yourself however of every thing that can afford you any light. “Lord Chief Justice Hale, wrote a Book under the Title of An History of the common Law I had it, and Suppose you have it now among my Law Books that I lent you. In this Work, an Octavo Volume well worth your reading, you will find much perhaps to your purpose. Fortesque Aland’s Reports You have among my Books. In a Preface to that Work there is much concerning the Saxon Language and the Saxon Folc Right. Ther is the best Deffinition, or description, or History if you will of the common Law, in that Preface, which I remember to have read. Blackstone took his Account of the common Law from that preface. Reeves’s History of the Law will probably assist you.” John Adams’s familiarity with these texts was well earned. He contracted to read law with James Putnam of Worcester in August 1756 for a period of two years. Once his studies were completed, he moved back to Braintree where he continued to prepare for the bar. In between chores on his father's farm, he translated Justinian and slowly read (by his own admission), Sir Geoffrey Gilbert's dense Treatise of Feudal Tenures (McCullough, John Adams, pp. 42–43). After his interview with Jeremiah Gridley, the dean of the Boston bar, Adams was invited to read in Gridley's law library. Shortly thereafter in November 1758 Gridley sponsored Adams's admission to the bar. After his admittance, Adams forged on with his rigorous reading regimen. The burgeoning success of his practice spurred an interest in assembling a legal library of the first degree. In a diary entry dated 30 January 1768 he records that he is "mostly intent at present upon collecting a library and I find that a great deal of thought and care, as well as money, are necessary to assemble an ample and well chosen assortment of books" (Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, I:337). McCullough states that for Adams, like Jefferson, "books [were] an extravagance he could no longer curb (with one London bookseller he had placed a standing order for 'every book and pamphlet, of reputation, upon the subjects of law and government as soon as it comes out'" (McCullough, John Adams, p. 64). His library, comprising some 3,500 volumes, is now housed at the Boston Public Library. Of these, 254 volumes are legal treatises, including four of the works mentioned in the letter to Thomas, some of which are found in multiple editions. A copy of Sir Matthew Hale’s Historia Placitorum Coronæ, perhaps distinct from the copy given to Thomas, is part of the collection. Fortescue Aland's Reports bears Adams's ownership inscription and is dated 1770. Reeve's History of the Common Law not only contains Adams's signature but also that of Thomas Boylston's son John Quincy (dated 1853) and the bookplate of another grandson, Charles Francis Adams. Adams also owned two editions of Blackstone's famous Commentaries as well as a set of his law tracts which survive in the collection. Adams at last recommends some his own writings to his son, staking a claim for having provided “the rough materials of the Declaration of Independence.” Adams later chafed at the idea that his Declaration of Rights was overlooked as the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence, having been eclipsed by Jefferson's authorial contributions. In his own copy of his Discourses on Davila, which recognized the dangers of an unbalanced democracy then unfolding in France, he privately fumes in an annotation: “The Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 contained Nothing but the Boston Declaration of 1772 and the Congress Declaration of 1774. Such are the Caprices of Fortune. This Declaration of Rights was drawn by the little John Adams. The mighty Jefferson by the Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776 carried away the glory both of the great and the little.” In a less agitated mood, he here informs his son, “If you look into the Journal of Congress for 1774 you will find a Declation [sic] of the Rights of the Colonies and another of the Violations of those Rights— These declarations or Lists were drawn up by two Committees. I was one of the first Committee and drew up the Report. in this you will See, not only the rough materials of the Declaration of Independence made two years after, but you will See in what Light the common Law was Seen by that Congress and by all America at that time. Extracts from these Journals, Should go into your common Law Pidgeon hole. There is a public printed declaration of the Town of Boston Some time anteriour to the meeting of the first congress which will deserve your Attention.” A footnote to this letter in The Adams Papers explains that “The Declaration of Rights and Grievances was adopted by the Continental Congress on 14 Oct. 1774 and listed ten rights that the Congress determined all colonists held, including the right ‘to life, liberty, and property.’ It also detailed recent parliamentary acts that were deemed ‘infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists’ and noted the pending implementation of a trade boycott and the preparation of an address to the inhabitants of Britain and ‘a loyal address’ to George III. [John Adams] successfully argued that the document should emphasize the relatively unassailable tenets of natural law over the more tenuous and variable precepts of common law. To support his claim [Adams] pointed to the Nov. 1772 resolutions of the Boston committee of correspondence, which listed grievances against Parliament and detailed colonists’ constitutional rights as Britons. The resolutions were published as The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, Boston, [1772]” (Evans12332; ESTC W29680). Adams concludes the letter with an admonition regarding Thomas’s safekeeping of their correspondence, “I can keep no Copies of my Letters to you and therefore I pray you to keep them Safely or to burn them, that they may not fall into the hands of the Ennemy of all good.” Thomas Boylston Adams, third son and youngest surviving child of John and Abigail (Smith) Adams, was born 15 September 1772. He graduated from Harvard in 1790 and studied law in the Philadelphia office of Jared Ingersoll for three years. He was admitted to the bar in 1793 but embraced the practice of law with far less enthusiasm than his father or siblings. When the opportunity arose in 1794 to serve as secretary to his brother John Quincy on the latter's first diplomatic mission to The Hague, he seized the moment, returning to Philadelphia four years later in the middle of his father's presidency. While his parents would have preferred him to settle in Quincy, they both recognized that Philadelphia offered more opportunities for a young lawyer with a recognizable name, but both evidently doubted their son's ability to succeed in the fast world of the capital (Ferling, John Adams, p. 388). He practiced law and contributed to Joseph Dennie's Port Folio in Philadelphia for some years thereafter. He was still in Philadelphia struggling with his practice in 1802. At the urging of his parents, he moved back to Quincy in 1803 and opened a law office there (Ferling, John Adams, p. 420) and sat in the Massachusetts legislature, 1805-1806. In 1811 he was appointed chief justice of the circuit court of common pleas for the southern circuit of Massachusetts. In spite of his participation in government and judicial appointment, Thomas's law practice never equaled the success of his father's. In later years Thomas sank into alcoholism like his brother Charles before him; and by the 1820s Thomas was employed chiefly as a caretaker for his father and the farm. He died 13 March 1832, in Quincy. REFERENCE The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, ed. Woodward, Martin, Minty, et al., 15:185–188

View 1 of Lot 502: Adams, John | A learned disquisition on the common law and natural rights and the roles those concepts played in Adams's own contributions to the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States

adams, john | a learned disquisition on the common law and natural rights and the roles those concepts played in adams's own contributions to the declaration of independence and the founding of the united states

Doubleday, Abner Autograph manuscript with cover title “Gen. Abner Doubleday’s Account of the Battle of Gettysburg. Original Autograph Manuscript with Twelve (sic) Original Maps.” [New York, ca. 1875–1885] 20 pages (209 x 170 mm) written on the rectos only of twenty nearly consecutive leaves of blue-line wove paper (one intervening blank leaf, another leaf without manuscript text, bearing only a large tipped-on map), 9 of the text leaves with tipped-on or pasted-down maps or plans, 4 of these with over-slip maps illustrating changes in troop positions, for a total of 14 maps (maps range in size from 28 x 128 mm to 208 x 235 mm), the maps and plans are largely drawn or finished by hand on slips cut from a mauve lithographed topographical map of the battlefield, text with a number of seemingly immediate deletions and emendations, as well as a more formal, later revision in red ink affecting four pages, including the addition of an extensive paragraph (ca. 85 words) to the penultimate text page. Bound, with additional blank leaves, in early twentieth-century green buckram, front cover lettered in gilt as above. Half blue morocco slipcase, chemise. A moment-by-moment account of the first day of Gettysburg, the most famous—and arguably the most consequential—battle in American history, in the hand of one of the commanders of the victorious Union forces. Abner Doubleday (1819–1893) was a career officer in the United States Army, graduating from West Point in 1842. Commissioned as a lieutenant in the First Artillery Regiment, he served at Monterrey and Buena Vista during the Mexican-American War. Over the next decade he held various posts and saw action in the Southwest and Florida in various iterations of the American Indian Wars. Fortune, good or otherwise, found Doubleday, by then a captain, second in command at Fort Sumter to Major Robert Anderson when the South Carolina Militia artillery fired the first shots of the Civil War. Doubleday was the first to return cannonade, later writing in Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultrie in 1860–’61 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876), “In aiming the first gun fired against the rebellion I had no feeling of self-reproach, for I fully believed that the contest was inevitable, and was not of our seeking. The United States was called upon not only to defend its sovereignty, but its right to exist as a nation. The only alternative was to submit to a powerful oligarchy who were determined to make freedom forever subordinate to slavery. To me it was simply a contest, politically speaking, as to whether virtue or vice should rule” (pp. 143–144). After Sumter was abandoned by the Union garrison, Doubleday continued to rise in rank as he served in the initial defenses of Washington, D.C., before leading troops in the Shenandoah Valley, and at Second Manassas, the Rappahannock River, Groveton (Virginia), South Mountain, Antietam, and Fredericksburg, after which he was promoted to major general of volunteers. Doubleday’s finest achievement in the Civil War came on 1 July 1863, when command of the First Corps fell to him after corps commander Major General John F. Reynolds was killed in the dawn of the battle. Leading 9,500 Union troops against ten Confederate brigades with almost twice that strength, the First Corps was obliged to retreat through Gettysburg and take up a defensive position on Cemetery Hill. Still, Doubleday’s men inflicted ferocious casualty rates on the rebels. “Gettysburg proved to be Doubleday's last major battle, however. He left the Army of the Potomac afterward, believing that Meade was planning to reorganize the army along political lines. … Humiliated by Meade's decision to replace him as corps commander, Doubleday resented Meade’s treatment of him [Meade gave permanent command of the First Corps to a more junior officer, Major General John Newton.] Before long he began to circulate rumors that Meade had planned to retreat after the second day of the battle. He repeated these charges in an appearance before the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War in March 1864” (Simpson and Van Atta, in American National Biography). Although Meade was thought to dislike Doubleday, he likely passed him over for permanent command because of an inaccurate report by Major General Oliver O. Howard, commander of the Eleventh Corps that Doubleday’s First Corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse. In retirement, Doubleday became a notable historian of the Civil War, publishing, in addition to numerous articles, three major monographs: Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultrie in 1860–’61 (cited above), Chancellorsville and Gettysburg (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1882), and Gettysburg Made Plain: A Succinct Account of the Campaign and Battles with the Aid of One Diagram and Twenty-nine Maps (New York: The Century Co., 1888). His publications were intended in part to justify his own actions and undermine Meade’s decisions, and sometimes mired him in controversy. The present manuscript, however—running to some 1,800 words—is for the most part a straightforward and objective account, perhaps an early working draft later revised for publication. The account begins with a map showing the positions of the two armies at 6:00 a.m. after “The Confederate general A. B. Hill advances with two divisions of his Corps to take Gettysburg, which is only held by Buford’s division of Cavalry.” Doubleday further explains, “Pender’s division with 48 guns is back of Heth but is not represented in this map, as it would take up too much space.” The second entry is datelined 10:10 a.m. and describes the pivotal moment of day, again accompanied by a map, this one with an overlay: “Meredith’s brigade (commonly called the Iron Brigade) is ordered into the woods by the Corps Commander Genl. Doubleday who has ridden up from the rear of the column at Marsh Creek. “At this juncture Genl. Reynolds goes into the woods in advance of the troops and is killed. Genl. Doubleday has taken charge of the battle. “The Confederate general Heth sends two brigades under Archer and Davis to attack the Union forces. “A curious state of things now occurs for the left of each force folds around the right of the other. “The Union left is quite successful. It captures Archer and a great part of his brigade, but the two Union regiments on the right are flanked and ordered to fall back to the town by Genl. Wadsworth. The third regiment (the 147 N. Y.) is surrounded by the enemy and loses heavily. Hall’s battery being attacked by skirmishers also retires as its supports are gone. “Genl. Doubleday sends his reserve, the 6th Wisconsin regiment, to rescue the 147 N. Y. The 6th Wisconsin under Lieutenant Colonel Dawes goes forward to the attack. It is joined by two regiments of Cutler’s brigade under Col. Fowler; the 14 Brooklyn and the 95th New York, who were about to attack the same enemy.” The manuscript moves forward just twenty minutes, to 10:30 a.m., with the text explicating another map with an overlay. “The plate represents the 2d Wisconsin who led the attack against Archer taking charge of the prisoners in the woods. The three remaining regiments have crossed the stream and formed line of battle on the other side. “Fowler and Dawes advanced to attack Davis’ Confederate brigade the greater part of which rushes into a railroad cut for shelter. Here being assaulted in front and flank, most of them are captured. “Genl. Doubleday finding his immediate front clear of the enemy reforms his lines east of Willoughby’s Run. “A glance at the Map would naturally lead one to inquire why Hill did not at once advance his reserves and sweep away the small force opposed to him. The fact is[,] owing to the absence of Stuart’s cavalry[,] that the movements of the Union army were not known to Genl. Lee or his subordinates. Hill therefore did not know whether he would find 5000 men or 50,000 in his front.” The cartographically illustrated narrative advances to 2:45 p.m., by which time, O. O. Howard’s Eleventh Corps has joined the First Corps in the field. At this point, Doubleday’s disaffection with the aftermath of the battle begins to show slightly, though his tone remains largely sober and impartial. “Ewell's two divisions under Rodes and Early now make a furious attack against both the First and the Eleventh Corps. “As Hill did not move promptly to second Ewell the First Corps repulsed the attack at all points, resisting repeated assaults, driving back O'Neal's brigade on the North and capturing all but one regiment of Iverson's brigade on the West. Daniel's attack on Stone’s brigade soon after was also driven back. “The enemy were more successful in their advance against the Eleventh Corps which indeed was too far out. Barlow being badly wounded and his division left in an angle between Dole’s Confederate brigade on the North and that of Gordon on the northeast the right flank of the Eleventh Corps was turned and forced back.” After further details of the battle, Doubleday admits that his own men could no longer carry the fight forward. “The First Corps from its heavy losses was no longer in a condition to repel the advance of four large brigades under Pender which up to this time had not been engaged but which now came forward.” The retreat of the First and Eleventh Corps are detailed next, but without finger-pointing or blame being assigned by Doubleday: “The Eleventh Corps are overwhelmed by superior numbers and are almost entirely driven from the field back to the rallying point on cemetery Ridge. … General Doubleday orders the First Corps to retreat undercover of a severe artillery fire from Seminary Ridge.” The manuscript concludes with the ending of the first day of battle, “Genl. Hancock now turns over the command of the troops to Genl. Slocum and rides back to report the state of affairs to Genl. Meade. The latter leaves Taneytown and reaches the field of battle soon after midnight.” The striking maps and plans are precise and detailed, depicting the shifting battlefield almost minute by minute. The positions of infantry, cavalry and artillery of both the Union and Confederate armies are indicated by Doubleday in red, yellow, green, blue and black inks, with the movements of troops, and the names of commanders are clearly designated. A number of similar maps appear in Gettysburg Made Plain, and versions of five of the maps from the present manuscript are reproduced in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Volume III: The Tide Shifts; Retreat from Gettysburg (New York: The Century Co., 1988), pp. 272, 282, illustrating General Henry J. Hunt’s chapter on “The First Day at Gettysburg.” PROVENANCE The Walpole Galleries, New York, 26 June 1916, lot 82 (undesignated consignor) — John Gribbel (bookplate; Parke-Bernet, 30 October 1940, lot 181) — Clendenin J. Ryan (Parke-Bernet, 5 November 1958, lot 54) — The Elsie O. and Philip D. Sang Foundation (Sotheby Parke Bernet, 20 June 79, lot 690)

View 1 of Lot 503: (Gettysburg) | “Genl. Doubleday has taken charge of the battle”: Abner Doubleday’s autograph witness to the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg, illustrated by fourteen insightful maps and plans 

(gettysburg) | “genl. doubleday has taken charge of the battle”: abner doubleday’s autograph witness to the first day of the battle of gettysburg, illustrated by fourteen insightful maps and plans

Jefferson, Thomas Autograph letter signed ("Th: Jefferson") as Secretary of State, 4 pages (238 x 200 mm) on a bifolium of laid paper (watermarked W), New York, 27 May 1790, to William Short, Chargé d'Affaires of the United States at Paris; with nine-line postscript of 28 May 1790; light browning, scattered spotting, some separations at folds (a few skillfully repaired). This lengthy and remarkably informative letter, written shortly after Jefferson's return from France, had its genesis in a letter William Short sent to Jefferson, 25 March 1790, in which he complained that he was in the awkward position of not knowing when, or if, Jefferson would return to Paris as minister to France—or if he would accept an appointment as Secretary of State. (Short was Jefferson’s private secretary, but during the latter’s absences, Short served as Chargé d'Affaires.) Short’s frustration is palpable in his letter, “My last to you was of the 4th. inst. and I then intended not not writing again before I should have learned something from you respecting your return. The object of that letter was of the most disagreeable kind possible, since it was to desire you would sollicit for me what I thought a kind of justice, nay strict justice between a sovereign and a person in service. Lest that letter may have miscarried I will repeat here the substance of it. … My opinion respecting your return to Paris has changed very often according to different circumstances which have come to my knowlege. But one thing which has never changed is my extreme mortification that you should leave me so long to guess at this from indirect circumstances. I have been long ashamed to be asked about you by your friends here, because it always forced me to the humiliating confession that I had not yet heard from you except by third persons. I add often that you must have written to me frequently but that your letters have either miscarried or been delayed in the route. I sometimes endeavour to persuade myself of the truth of this, but a little reflexion shews me that the time which has elapsed is now too long to admit of such an interpretation. The construction which I at present put on your silence is that you had not absolutely decided whether you would accept the place offered you or not, and that you did not chuse to write in an uncertainty of mind. That would have been natural enough with a person indifferent to you, but I had fondly flattered myself that I should never be put on that footing” (Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Boyd, 16:271–274). This was clearly a letter that Jefferson could not ignore, and two days after he received it, Jefferson penned a widely discursive response, beginning with an elaborate series of defensive excuses, but not quite apology: “A periodical headach has put it out of my power for near a month to attend to any business, or correspondence public or private, and such is my present situation that, favorable as the opportunity is by Mr. Crevecoeur, I had not meant to venture to write to you. But the receipt of yours of Mar. 25. has decided me to try it. on my arrival in Virginia, as there was a vessel just sailing for England, I wrote you information of our safe passage, the only fact I then knew, as I had not set foot on shore. this you have acknoleged the receipt of. in my progress thro the country to Eppington I gleaned up all the information possible which I thought would be interesting to you, and communicated it in a letter to you of Dec. 14. from Eppington. this went through A. Donald by the way of London, but perceiving by your letters that you had not received it so late as Mar. 25. I have copied and now inclose it with this. perhaps some of the intelligence may still be new to you. in that I mentioned that being about to immerge into the forests of Albemarle, where I should hear nothing of what was passing in the world, I should not write to you again till I should emerge.” Jefferson at last broaches the subject of his new position as Secretary of State, which he had entered two months earlier: “I mentioned too the footing on which stood the proposal for my translation to a new office. it was not till the middle of February that a second letter from the President determined me to accept it: and I left Monticello in a fortnight after for New York. at Alexandria finding a vessel bound for France I wrote to you to wit Mar. 12. of this letter I have sent triplicates. since my arrival here I have written Mar. 28. Apr.6.7. 27. 30. sending duplicates and triplicates of some of them.” Returning to the topic of his migraine, Jefferson describes a more serious illness that befell President Washington—and the general relief felt at its resolution. “the day after the date of the last, I was taken with the illness which still confines me. In the mean time we have been very near losing the President. he was taken with a peripneumony and on the 5th. day he was pronounced by two of the three physicians present to be in the act of death. a succesful effort of nature however relieved him and us. you cannot conceive the public alarm on this occasion. it proves how much depends on his life.” Jefferson then turns to matters related to Franco-American relations and also correctly predicts a new location for the nation’s capital, “no successor at Paris is yet named: nor is any other mission on the carpet. I wish that while you stay you could obtain the free introduction of our salted provisions into France. nothing would be so generally pleasing from the Chesepeak to New Hampshire. you will see in the newspapers a bill for increasing the tonnage of nations not in treaty with us to a given time and then prohibiting their transporting our commodities. this I think will pass. in the house of representatives there is a great majority for it. the hope I have held out of obtaining the introduction of our salted provisions into France, has been an efficacious incitement to this bill. a motion is now before the Senate for having the next meeting of Congress at Philadelphia: and it is rather probable it will be carried in both houses. in that case we shall remove to Philadelphia about the 1st. of September. I wish it may be decided in time for me to give you notice so that Petit and my baggage may come directly to Philadelphia.” Short, in fact, was Jefferson’s successor as Minister to France, serving until 1792, when he was transferred to the Netherlands and replaced in Paris by Gouverneur Morris. Jefferson closes his letter with a flurry of news and a daunting list of instructions for Short: “with respect to the loss of your money by Nomeny I do not apprehend there can be any difficulty. only take care and establish on the best testimony the case will admit, how much of it was to be paid for public purposes, and how much was for your private use. this being done, I suppose the principles to be well established in law which will make the first a public, and the latter your private loss. it cannot be brought on till the settlement of your account, and then it will be decided on, not by Congress, but the regular judge in that department. “You will see by the Virginia papers that Colo. Dudley Digges is dead: that Mr. Henry is elected contrary to what had been said of his retiring &c. &c. for these papers which I will regularly send you will convey to you all the small news I know. Madison of the College is coming here to be made a bishop. send me if you please the records of the Bastile which they had begun to publish.” (This work was La Bastille dévoilée, ou recueil de pièces authentiques pour servir à son histoire [Paris, 1789–1790]. Short obtained a set of nine parts of this work for Jefferson in August 1790; see Sowerby, Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson, no. 218.) “I send by Mr. Crevecoeur my alarm watch to be mended. there is a paper of explanation with it. I send also by him about ½ doz. ℔. of Balsamum Canadense for M. Deville, which be pleased to ask his acceptance of from me, and apologize from my sickness for my not writing. I wish, if it be practicable, that you could make all the paiments of rent for my house since my departure, enter into Mr. Grand’s accounts, so that I may have no occasion to place them in mine at all.—press the affairs of the Algerine redemption and write it’s progress continually. present me to all my friends as if they were here named, and be assured of the constant esteem & attachment of Dear Sir your sincere & affectionate friend.” Dated 28 May, the postscript is of particular note not only for its content but as a demonstration of Jefferson's ambidexterity; the letter was written with Jefferson’s left hand, but the postscript with his right. “Last night I received your letters to me of Jan. 28. and Feb. 10. and to Mr. Jay of Jan. 23. and Feb. 10. they had arrived at Baltimore, gone to Mr. Jay at Portsmouth in New Hampshire, and returned here. the packet being to sail tomorrow I doubt the possibility of sending you the two copies of the Federalist bound. if it cannot be done now, it shall be by another opportunity. the motion for removal to Philadelphia has been evaded in the Senate and withdrawn. it is now moved in the other house: but probability is now rather against it’s success.—" Jefferson ends the postscript with an important update: "the President is well enough to resume business." REFERENCE The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Boyd, 16:443–445 PROVENANCE Helen Fahnestock Hubbard (Parke-Bernet Galleries, 22 May 1956, lot 100) — The Elsie O. and Philip D. Sang Foundation (Sotheby Parke Bernet, 26 April 1978, lot 141)

View 1 of Lot 505: Jefferson, Thomas | In a widely discursive letter, Jefferson announces that he is joining Washington’s cabinet and expresses great relief at the recovery of the President from a serious illness

jefferson, thomas | in a widely discursive letter, jefferson announces that he is joining washington’s cabinet and expresses great relief at the recovery of the president from a serious illness

Results for "The Third Man"