k look perhaps intended to denote amazement at his
election.

The illustrations of Thomas's toy reprints should not be overlooked. The
Worcester printer seems to have rewritten the "Introduction" to "Goody
Two-Shoes," and at the end he affixed a "Letter from the Printer which
he desires may be inserted.

SIR: I have come with your copy, and so you may return it
to the Vatican, if you please; and pray tell Mr. Angelo to brush up
his cuts; that in the next edition they may give us a good
impression."

This apology for the character of the illustrations serves as an
introduction to a most interesting subject of conjecture as to the
making of the cuts, and particularly as to the engraving of the
frontispiece in "Goody Two-Shoes."

[Illustration: _Goody Twoshoes._]

It will be remembered that Isaiah Thomas in his advertisement to
booksellers had expressly mentioned the great expense he had incurred in
bringing out the juvenile books in "the English method." But Mr. Edwin
Pearson, in his delightful discussion of "Banbury Chap-Books," has also
stated that the wood-cut frontispiece in the first American edition of
"Goody Two-Shoes," printed by Thomas, was engraved by Bewick, the famous
English illustrator. A comparison of the reproduction of the Bewick
engraving in Mr. Pearson's book with the frontispiece in Thomas's
edition shows so much difference that it is a matter of regret that Mr.
Pearson withheld his authority for attributing to Bewick the
representation of Margery Two-Shoes. Besides the inference from Thomas's
letter that the poor cuts would be improved before another edition
should be printed, there are several points to be observed in comparing
the cuts. In the first place, the execution in the Thomas cut suggests a
different hand in the use of the tools; again, the reversed position of
the figure of "Goody" indicates a copy of the English original. Also the
expression of Thomas's heroine, although slightly mincing, is less
distressed than the British dame's, to say nothing of the variation in
the fashion of the gowns. And such details as the replacing of the
English landscape by the spire of a meeting-house in the distance seem
to confirm the impression that the drawing was made after, but not by
Bewick. In the cuts scattered throughout the text the same difference in
execution and portrayal of the little schoolmistress is noticeable.
Margery, upon her rounds to teach the farmers' children