. Nay, even I may say about the first edition
of "Ballades in Blue China" (1880), as Gibbon said of his "Essay on the
Study of Literature:" "The primitive value of half a crown has risen to
the fanciful price of a guinea or thirty shillings," or even more. I
wish I had a copy myself, for old sake's sake.

Certain modern books, "on large paper," are safe investments. The
"Badminton Library," an English series of books on sport, is at a huge
premium already, when on "large paper." But one should never buy the
book unless, as in the case of Dr. John Hill Burton's "Book-Hunter"
(first edition), it is not only on large paper, and not only rare (twenty-
five copies), but also readable and interesting. {7} A collector should
have the taste to see when a new book is in itself valuable and charming,
and when its author is likely to succeed, so that his early attempts (as
in the case of Mr. Matthew Arnold, Lord Tennyson, and a few others of the
moderns) are certain to become things of curious interest.

You can hardly ever get a novel of Jane Austen's in the first edition.
She is rarer than Fielding or Smollett. Some day it may be the same in
Miss Broughton's case. Cling to the fair and witty Jane, if you get a
chance. Beware of illustrated modern books in which "processes" are
employed. Amateurs will never really value mechanical reproductions,
which can be copied to any extent. The old French copper-plate
engravings and the best English mezzo-tints are so valuable because good
impressions are necessarily so rare.

One more piece of advice. Never (or "hardly ever") buy an imperfect
book. It is a constant source of regret, an eyesore. Here have I
Lovelace's "Lucasta," 1649, _without the engraving_. It is deplorable,
but I never had a chance of another "Lucasta." This is not a case of
_invenies aliam_. However you fare, you will have the pleasure of Hope
and the consolation of books _quietem inveniendam in abditis recessibus
et libellulis_.

ROCHEFOUCAULD

_To the Lady Violet Lebas_.

Dear Lady Violet,--I am not sure that I agree with you in your admiration
of Rochefoucauld--of the _Reflexions, ou Sentences et Maximes Morales_, I
mean. At least, I hardly agree when I have read many of them at a
stretch. It is not fair to read them in that way, of course, for there
are more than five hundred _pensees_, and so much _esprit_ becomes
fatiguing. I doubt if people study them much. Five or six of them ha