Glocester May 1764.

Dear Sir

I am once more return’d to Glocester my Health being greatly improved by the Bath waters. I left your Sisters¹ there very well on Monday last. and from them I had the Pleasure to hear of M^rs. Pennants Recovery of which I give you Joy. Since I came here I have seen the Printer who says that the Prices of printing a Work in 8^vo. are regulated by the Size of the Letter and the Dimensions of the Page. Thus a Sheet of what he calls Pica Letter, (of which you have a Sample marked No. i)² containing 38 Letters in a Line, and 35 Lines in a Page comes to 17.S. per Sheet for printing. A Sheet of the same Pica Letter containing 42 letters in a Line and 39 Lines in a Page, comes to ^£1:1:0 forper Sheet for printing.

Upon a Letter one Size larger than the above Specimen the Charge for printing will be from 14. S. to 18. or 19 S. per Sheet.

You will receive a Specimen of a Letter one Size larger than Pica marked N^o. 2. This Letter is the same with that used in the History of Kamtschatka, & the Price is 17.S. per Sheet This Letter I think better than the Pica which he says is a new Letter. The Pica is indeed neatest but it fatigues the Eye in reading.

M^r Raikes says he can send no better proposals than the above without seeing the Copy. But if he was permitted to see the Copy ^Manuscript he would then print off a Page or two by way of specimen. This I shall not allow, or let him know what the Work is except I receive a Commission from you for that Purpose. The above Calculation is made for 500 Copies. but if more are wanting the additional Paper will be the Chief if not the only additional Expence.

M^r. Raikes has sent the enclosed Specimens of Paper. One at 17.S. 6.d. per Ream the other at 15-^S. and he has some of Inferior Quality at 13.S.

Upon my Return home I find myself in full Employment. the Infirmary very full, & much other Business leaves me very little at Leisure. However I shall be glad to serve you in whatever I can.

The British Zoology part the 2d. & another Copy for M^r. Tindale I have received. The figures are in general well done, but two very common Birds are so very ill executed that I fear it will bring a Discredit on the whole. These are the wood Pigeon or Ring Dove, & the Bull finch.³ They are not at all proportioned to the size of the natural Birds. The Wood Pigeon I thought a bird of Prey by its attitude, & could by no means guess what it was on account of its bulk. You will excuse my censuring freely what I think wrong in the work as I wish it well.

Possibly M^rs. Pennant may be advised to a water drinking Place for the more perfect establishment of her health.⁴ If she is Malvern, or Bristol may probably be recommended, & then I shall in either case hope to see You & her. I beg my Compliments to her & am

Your most faithful
humble Servant

D. Lysons.

---

Editorial notes

1. Lysons refers to Pennant's twin sisters, Sarah and Catherine Pennant.
2. Neither this nor other samples or enclosures mentioned have been preserved with the manuscript letter.
3. For references to plates of the birds which Lysons notes are a cause for concern in this letter, see British zoology (2nd edn., 1768–70). Vol. I, p. 216, includes Dove, or Wood Pigeon in a list of names under the general title Common Pigeon, referring in a note to 'Br zool. 88. plate 88'. Ibid., vol. II, p. 307, mentions under 'The Brambling', 'Br. Zool. 108. plate V. f. 4'; and p. 321 under 'The Greater Brambling' refers to 'Br. Zool. 112. plate [gap] f. 6.'
4. Pennant's first wife, Elizabeth (née Falconer) was to die in June 1764.