NJ-GSNJ-L Archives

Archiver > NJ-GSNJ > 2007-07 > 1183419765


From: "David Thom" <>
Subject: [NJ-GSNJ] James Thom, sculptor - (19th. century) legal problems.
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:42:45 +0100


Hi, Terri, Curt & Anne Marie,

Thank you very much for your responses and continued interest. Please
accept my apologies for the' blanket' answer, and also for my earlier
message appearing in fragmented sentences & paragraphs - I have noticed
that happening before but have never found the cause.

It is a pleasure reading the work of the old 19th. century journalists -
their use of the English language and its punctuation is an art form that
one seldom encounters today (over here, anyway!). However, journalistic
licence back then was, indeed, just as common as it is now, as I have
found out to my cost on several occasions when known fact has been
unrecognisable against glowing press reports!


I reckon it must be around 50/50 when it comes to believing what is
written in those old accounts and its not always easy to accept some of
the statements. None-the-less, within those bounds, they often provide
information which is relatively accurate and of great value - depending on
the nature of the writing. (e.g. an advertisement is usually accurate
whereas an account may not be so.)

Mr. Field has been described variously as 'an errant agent', a 'rascal', a
'miscreant',a 'rogue', and a 'fraudster.' That has certainly always been
the known story and the accepted case, over here - reinforced in various
'pocket' biographies, obituaries, and accounts written back in 1837.

Given that Field had a large supply of booklets (which were sold at each
venue) containing the poem "Tam O' Shanter", and including the history of
Burns, some notes on James Thom, and a full description of the statues, it
is hard to believe he was anything else but an appointed 'agent.'

So, it was interesting to be sent that newspaper reference to
Mr. Field, claiming him to be the owner through purchase and the victim of
a misunderstanding, or rancour. In the absence of the information from the
precursory statements it would be most interesting to see what was
actually written, and what Field offered as proof or defence of his claim.

Anne Marie - I very much appreciate your offer to have a look at
some of the old papers, and it would be great if some comment was found,
but please don't suffer any great personal inconvenience to do so.

Thank you all, again.

David.

This thread: